What about your relationship without kratos?
Also, I tend to favor postition closer to Robert Nozick
,Herbert Spencer, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, etc.
edited 3rd Aug '11 10:22:50 AM by secretist
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
Citizen
I'm not sure I understand the question. Kratos, in the sense of the state's coercive power, is the only means by which a state can operate. The only questions I think are relevant are, to what ends and to what extent should a state use its coercive power?
A government raises money by taxation and borrowing. Borrowed money can only be repaid by tax revenue. A government also compels obedience by the use of force against lawbreakers (by police and courts) or foreign powers (by the military). Sure, the state can pay people or provide financial incentives to do certain things, but the money to pay for that must eventually be raised by the use of force (or the threat of force, which is the same thing).
So to put it bluntly, Kratos is the only way by which any government can operate. Which is why there needs to be plenty of checks and balances on it.
edited 3rd Aug '11 11:30:15 AM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Kratos here only means the initation of force according to the way I read it. It could use force, but not initiate it is my anti-kratos.
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
Citizen
In that case my answer is the same. Government should possess a monopoly on the legal initiation of force. How and when that force is applied is a political question that is almost always unique to each situation.
Individuals should be allowed to use force to protect themselves and others from unlawful initiation of force. Self-defense, or defense of property, for example.
There are plenty of uses of force that should not belong in private hands. Search and seizure, arrest and detention, confiscation and sale of property to satisfy debts are all things that private citizens should not be permitted to do.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.[10] Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.[11] For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.[12]
Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[13] "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action.[14] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists that view capitalism and its market as just another authority. Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms,[15] and vice versa.
Citizen
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I find that idea to be utterly horrifying. The country openly run by corporate conglomerates with their own courts, military and police? No accountable elected officials, no laws protecting workers' rights, or anybody's rights for that matter? No environmental regulation, no minimum wage, no unions, no workers compensation programs, no public education, no health care... etc. etc.
A world where corporations can have workers shot for demading higher wages or a safe workplace, where those with the money have nothing to stop them from enslaving or exterminating anybody they want?
No thank you.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.No, they would fire them, not shoot them.
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
Moar and Moar and Moar
Well, I think that someone really could get shot over such a dispute. Depends on the circumstances, of course, but once you realize that the natural evolution of the anchro-capitalist society is the company town-type scenario, it becomes a LOT clearer.
And when you understand that people DID get killed over company town disputes..well...
Edit: A descent example of a futuristic anchro-capitalist society I think is in the book Snow Crash.
edited 4th Aug '11 12:26:56 PM by Karmakin
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
I'm ambivalent towards both archy and kratos.
And anarcho-capitalism is a terrible idea, worse even than anarcho-syndicalism, but still better than anarcho-primitivism.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
Proud Canadian
I'm centrist, so none apply.
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.@Silver:That would label you a populist. Why haven't more people gone with an ambivalent option?
- Ambivalent towards archy
- Anti kratos or Paleolibertarianism
- Ambivalent toward kratos or Populism
- Pro kratos or Communitarianism
- Ambivalent towards kratos
- Anti archy or Radicalism
- Ambivalent towards archy or Populism
- Pro archy or Theoconservatism
Oh, and yes I listed Populism twice, because of the double ambivalence.
edited 6th Aug '11 8:10:35 AM by secretist
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
I'm pretty anti-populist, if anything.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
Silence Is Golden
AAAANARCHYYYY!!! WE'RE AB-SO-LUTELY FREE!!
The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.
vigilantly taxonomish
Like silver, I'm ambivalent towards both. Or at least, I think both can be used positively and negatively, depending on circumstances.
I don't believe I'm a populist. I'm certainly not a populist as defined by the OP.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffBPM's political theory:
republican constitutionalism = pro archy, anti kratos libertarian individualism = anti archy, anti kratos democratic progressivism = anti archy, pro kratos plutocratic nationalism = pro archy, pro kratos Mitchell charts these traditions graphically using a vertical axis as a scale of kratos/akrateia and a horizontal axis as a scale of archy/anarchy. He places democratic progressivism in the lower left, plutocratic nationalism in the lower right, republication constitutionalism in the upper right, and libertarian individualism in the upper left. The political left is therefore distinguished by its rejection of archy, while the political right is distinguished by its acceptance of archy.
For Mitchell, anarchy is not the absence of government but the rejection of rank. Thus there can be both anti-government anarchists (Mitchell’s “libertarian individualists”) and pro-government anarchists (Mitchell's “democratic progressives,” who favor the use of government force against social hierarchies such as patriarchy). Mitchell also distinguishes between left-wing anarchists and right-wing anarchists, whom Mitchell renames “akratists” for their opposition to the government’s use of force.
In addition to the four main traditions, Mitchell identifies eight distinct political perspectives represented in contemporary American politics:
communitarian = ambivalent toward archy, pro kratos progressive = anti archy, pro kratos (democratic progressivism) radical = anti archy, ambivalent toward kratos individualist = anti archy, anti kratos (libertarian individualism) paleolibertarian = ambivalent toward archy, anti kratos paleoconservative = pro archy, anti kratos (republican constitutionalism) theoconservative = pro archy, ambivalent toward kratos neoconservative = pro archy, pro kratos (plutocratic nationalism) A potential ninth perspective, in the midst of the eight, is populism, which Mitchell says is vaguely defined and situation dependent, having no fixed character other than opposition to the prevailing power.
Eight Ways received favorable reviews from libertarians and paleoconservatives, who welcomed the attention and the critique, but it has been largely ignored by the political mainstream.[3][4]
edited 8th Aug '11 8:23:17 AM by secretist
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
Tyrannicidal Maniac
LOL @ "pro-government anarchists".
Enjoy the Inferno...
Decemberist
By that definition, I am one. Heh.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
In other words, it's yet another political classification system designed to convince people that they were libertarians all along.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
I'd classify myself as a Rawlsian liberal, after John Rawls, author of A Theory of Justice. According to the scheme discussed here, I suppose I'd fit under "Democratic Progressivism". Other thinkers that I relate to include Aristotle, James Madison, Thomas Paine and Theodore Roosevelt.
I despise the idea of a natural hierarchy, in the sense that some people ought to be treated as inherently superior based on nothing more than their race, sex, age, religion, orientation or social class. People's place in society should be based on merit, not arbitrary classifications based on one's birth.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.