Anarcho-Capitalism and Young Earth Creationism: parallels - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14424077
lucky wrote:So you're saying Hayek was an anarchist? Friedrich Hayek?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. You claim that ancaps believe in views far out of the scientific consensus. I assume that you mean the Austrian school of economics? Hayek wasn't an anarchist, but he was a nobel prize winning austrian economist.

Anyway, I don't know what you hope to gain. You make a post that can never be right because you make a generalisation about a group of people. I am a self identified ancap, but tbh I don't see myself fitting in your description. Well, not more than most people.

You didn't get the point. Social-democrats don't generally say "Let's do XYZ because our interpretation of the Standard Morality Book unambiguously implies that this is what we must do because that's what it says. Oh and incidentally it seems that following it will also make us all better off - lucky us!". They, as most people, try to make these decisions the other way, deliberately aiming for the betterment of social welfare, knowing that we humans are the ones that define policy.
Let me give you one example. Democracy. Most people believe that democracy is just and will end give better results than dictatorship. My positition as ancap is more or less the same. Following the NAP is just and because it is just it will generally lead to desired consequences. So in that respect I am no different than people believing in democracy.

I like debating ridiculous claims, regardless of whether the person supports similar policies as I do.

Well, I suggest that you debate the ridiculous claims then if you like doing that so much. But that's not what you are doing here. You are making just making generalisations that are of a personal nature then really debating the issues. Even if ancaps believe in creationism (i really don't believe that) then does that make their other claims automatically false? Not at all. Those are sepperate issues.

The Non-Aggression Principle can't be "true" or "false". It can be a good idea or a bad idea, a good policy or a bad policy, you can support it or oppose it, etc. But the words "true" and "false" mean something very different.

The point was: the NAP is the centerpiece to defining ancap. But it is not an authority arguement why ancap is desired. This contrasts to your earlier opinion that the NAP was a similar authority arguement as God or the Bible. It isn't.

The NAP defines ancap. It doesn't justify it. It's not an authority arguement.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

There are many ways to approach a construction sit[…]

https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1773500[…]

One potential solution is for us to do everything[…]

Nobody has the means to intercept any significant[…]