Actually, I never said that, that was the other guy...who was qouting me, so you probably typoed.
Yep. Typo'd
The paladin in an evil land would try to knock down that authority, yes, but he'd also try to replace it with a different, good aligned one.Why? Nothing in the paladin's description says he would constantly try to create authorities. If he knocks down the evil authority, and see the people living well on their own, being able to work together without hierarchies, he isn't in any way forced to implement them. In fact, if a paladin would force or try to manipulate in some kind of authority upon a peaceful, self-sustaining society where decisions are made on basis of consensus or direct democracy, I'd probably crown that one a fallen paladin in no time.
Greyhawk's halfling goddess Yondalla is lawful good, but she doesn't seem to uptight about strict hierarchies - in fact, greyhawk halflings seem to be the race that cares the least about authority (maybe matched by moon elves).
He would set up a new authority or leadership because he is lawful. As I seem to be saying so very often these days, stop using the Code as a crutch.
This has nothing to do with strict hierarchies. Halflings don't have a strict and heavy hierarchy, sure, but they still have mayors, they still have law, and they still have order. A paladin who actually wants to be lawful good would, on bringing down an evil tyrant, try to foster in a new leadership to guide the town/city/kingdom to a new golden age. Nor would he try to force them; diplomacy is a class skill, not intimidate.
He would set up a new authority or leadership because he is lawful. As I seem to be saying so very often these days, stop using the Code as a crutch.
This has nothing to do with strict hierarchies. Halflings don't have a strict and heavy hierarchy, sure, but they still have mayors, they still have law, and they still have order. A paladin who actually wants to be lawful good would, on bringing down an evil tyrant, try to foster in a new leadership to guide the town/city/kingdom to a new golden age. Nor would he try to force them; diplomacy is a class skill, not intimidate.
Does that mean EVERY lawful character in the game world will do this? Also, this is what is said about lawfulness:
"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."Obedience to authority isn't the same thing as promotion of authority. It doesn't say you have to have hierarchies or official authority. It doesn't even mention official authority! Authority could be a lot of things - it could for example be respect for those with more experience or knowledge on the subject matter. Obeding the town healer's plea to evacuate the town because of spreading plague is as much obeding authority as obeding the town's lord who says they should stay, since the healer is an authority on medicine. This is true even if there's no official hierarchy where the healer can tell people to do stuff.
A society which is a direct democracy where people help each other out of the goals of the society, where people see justice, truth and reliability as important virtues and which respects traditions, is in my book very much lawful. Lawful good, I'd say.
What do you propose a paladin would do when he sees such a society? Tell them that "Well, you've gotta have a king/mayor/some other person with lots of more power than everyone else, because this is..." well, what is it? It's certainly not chaotic in any way.
This is what is said on chaos:
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
The only thing here that has anything to do with it is freedom. However, freedom is an extremely subjective term, especially since it doesn't say what it's freedom from.
Generally, RAW is very vague on alignments, but I don't see how you in any way could say a society with direct democracy without tiers of hierarchies can't be lawful.
Halflings don't have a strict and heavy hierarchy, sure, but they still have mayors, they still have law, and they still have order.
Just some additional comments on this: With strict hierarchy, I meant things just like mayors and such. By strict, I meant that some people are by law given more power than others. A mayor, in case he has the power to order people (and isn't just a chosen spokesperson, which isn't an authority), is a strict authority. An elder that has no more official power than anyone else, but whose opinion has great weight among people, is an inofficial authority - but not as much a case of hierarchies.
Also, you can very well have law and order in an anarchistic society, those are not exclusive. What matters is who has the power to make and uphold those laws. Anarchism seeks to remove hierarchies, whether political (such as majors), economical (such as slavery and corporativism), sexist and racist hierarchies, and so on. Some anarchists, but just some, see any kind of law as oppression by the majority of the minority, but some (and at least among people I've spoken to, far more) seem to think that direct democracy is okay to some degree, though most think the laws should be mostly to prevent violence and the like.
Order could be upheld without authorities, simply by people. The people itself is the authority, so to speak, and if you do something wrong - be prepared to be exiled from the community.
EDIT: Also, I don't really want to get into a discussion about whether these ideas would actually work IRL; I'm just explaining why I don't think anarchism isn't opposed to lawfulness.
Oh great a thread where people get to pull out objectivist libertarianism as the "ideal perfect society". >:|
Capitalism is great a maximizing wealth production, in fact of our current systems it's generally considered the best at wealth production. However it is also incredibly bad at wealth distribution. Now even distribution of wealth is by no means a universal "good" but many people feel that gross disparities in wealth represent a social injustice.
A form of central government is not necessarily a bad thing. There are obviously public goods that capitalism cannot or will not allocate. By instituting a central form of government (king, bureaucracy, etc) that gathers a percentage of society's surplus labor, the government is able to allocate resources in a way that can benefit all of society.
One of the core problems with objectivist/libertarian viewpoints is that while people like the current wealth they enjoy under our current free market/government control of market systems there is no guarantee that they would enjoy the same amount of wealth had the US (or any other country) been a minarchist state in the past.
For instance a large percentage of the current wealth of the United States is dependent on a well-educated populace that has free and fair access to markets and a transportation system that facilitates market relationship over a large geographic area. Further strong central authority is often critical for organizing large states (like the US) and providing for the common defense.
While it's possible that we could've developed an extensive series of tollroads in place of the US highway system it seems moderately unlikely. Further without a universal system of education it's unlikely that workers would be as productive; more educated workers typically are more productive.
Further very very few anarcho-capitalists truly advocate a system without at least some central authority for policing and the common defense. While they might advocate for a smaller military (despite the military-industrial complex being a magnificent source of wealth) it's hard to make money if the bigger guy next door just comes and takes the fruit of your labor from you. Historically speaking there is almost always a bigger guy out there somewhere.
Finally it's considered an article of faith that under perfect free market conditions it's impossible for market failures to occur. Individuals have free and easy access to markets. However historically speaking bigger competitors move in a manner to freeze out lesser competitors. Monopolies and collusive oligopies form which maximize the profit of a select few at the cost of maximum utility for society as a whole. Without some central authority to weaken the power of monopolists or to correct other forms of market failure (false information, deceptive business practices, etc) there is no real indication that the market would simply correct itself. In fact most people assume that in the absence of central authority the social contract actually tends to break down (gangs form, lopting occurs, widespread loss of life, zombie plagues, etc). I have yet to see a cogent argument for how to transfer from a nation-state system of government to a truly minarchist or anarcho-capitalist system without extreme loss of life.
Most people playing D&D seem to assume that lawful = statist and chaotic = individualistic. End state minarchy might be extremely lawful (I personally have some doubts) but I think most would argue that anarcho-capitalists favor rugged individualism and the cult of the visionary capitalist to the nth degree. I think it's pretty safe to say that we are talking Chaotic (yet rational- remember chaotic doesn't mean irrational) behavior. Free market economics is precise and efficient but besides conforming to certain universal axioms doesn't really require a ton of laws in order to work ie barter/trade economies are also good examples of free markets.
Further most minarchists / objectivists believe that altruism is a function of individuals maximizing personal utility. Doing good isn't good in and of itself rather charity is individuals helping others in a selfish manner (either expecting reciprocal behavior or the lost resources represent a concrete benefit to self, i.e. "feeling good about yourself"). Existential "good" and "evil" are largely immaterial, as long as people don't violate basic "non-aggression" principles, such as engage in coercive behavior, utility or good is maximized. In this case good is different than Good. I think in general we are talking Neutral behavior but would be willing to stipulate Neutral with good tendencies.
I think as a result you probably have someone who is CN(G) which clearly is not LG, thus not eligible for paladin status.
Also, as noted in my OP, the paladin in question would be anarcho-capitalist. *Regardless whether you agree or not*, ancaps view a free market as spontaneously ordered - in other words, the free market provides a system of order without authority.
Oh great a thread where people get to pull out objectivist libertarianism as the "ideal perfect society". >:|
Capitalism is great a maximizing wealth production, in fact of our current systems it's generally considered the best at wealth production. However it is also incredibly bad at wealth distribution. Now even distribution of wealth is by no means a universal "good" but many people feel that gross disparities in wealth represent a social injustice.
A form of central government is not necessarily a bad thing. There are obviously public goods that capitalism cannot or will not allocate. By instituting a central form of government (king, bureaucracy, etc) that gathers a percentage of society's surplus labor, the government is able to allocate resources in a way that can benefit all of society.
One of the core problems with objectivist/libertarian viewpoints is that while people like the current wealth they enjoy under our current free market/government control of market systems there is no guarantee that they would enjoy the same amount of wealth had the US (or any other country) been a minarchist state in the past.
For instance a large percentage of the current wealth of the United States is dependent on a well-educated populace that has free and fair access to markets and a transportation system that facilitates market relationship over a large geographic area. Further strong central authority is often critical for organizing large states (like the US) and providing for the common defense.
While it's possible that we could've developed an extensive series of tollroads in place of the US highway system it seems moderately unlikely. Further without a universal system of education it's unlikely that workers would be as productive; more educated workers typically are more productive.
Further very very few anarcho-capitalists truly advocate a system without at least some central authority for policing and the common defense. While they might advocate for a smaller military (despite the...
I'm sorry, but have you read the thread? Nobody has actually advocated an ancap society - those here who have defended capitalism are minarchist, not anarchist. Also, you seem to imply that everyone who is libertarian is Objectivist - I take strong offense to that (and if this comes across as more hostile than my usual posts, that is probably why). You also seem to imply that everyone who is libertarian is wealthy - that is also not true. I make well below the poverty-line, would do quite well under a wealth redistribution system... and still oppose it as wrong and inefficient. As for your challenges:
Claiming it is bad at wealth distribution presupposes things - it is a normative argument. I think it is quite good at wealth distribution, in that it rewards hard work and innovation, rather than giving equal wealth to everyone regardless of work ethic.
Claiming there are obviously public goods that capitalism cannot or will not allocate is begging the question. Some goods have been publicly allocated since governments came to be - free market capitalism has never been given a chance! The fact that these goods are considered public in the first place is, to me, a clearly defined case of poor property right application. What exactly is a public good? Even the education system can be privatized, and even if you allow the externalities of better education, it does not follow that the government must provide the system along with the funding.
Many times you seem to confuse minarchy and anarchy - they are not the same. Making arguments against one does not work against the other, except where they have common traits. Saying anarchists want centralized defense and policing is flat out wrong.
You seem to take it as an article of faith that a true free market system leads to unfair competition - since you have never seen a truly free market, you have no grounds for that. Many cases of monopolies and oligopolies arise out of government regulation in the industry. I accept that market failures exist - but the government fails numerous times as well. I will make the claim that market failures will do less damage under a free market system than the mixed economy we have now.
As for your stance on what minarchy and anarchy says about charity - you are speaking from your posterior. You have no clue.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
This has nothing to do with strict hierarchies. Halflings don't have a strict and heavy hierarchy, sure, but they still have mayors, they still have law, and they still have order. A paladin who actually wants to be lawful good would, on bringing down an evil tyrant, try to foster in a new leadership to guide the town/city/kingdom to a new golden age. Nor would he try to force them; diplomacy is a class skill, not intimidate.
Does that mean EVERY lawful character in the game world will do this?
No, but every Good character should stick around and help the people rebuild. A Robin Hood (CG) would split the tyrant's treasury amongst the people and leave, letting the people do as they wish with their new money, after all, its their right as individuals.
A paladin (LG) would likely try to foster a strong sense of community and interdependency, so the newly liberated territory would act as one and be able to defend itself from external threats.In real world (theoretical) terms, Socialism and Capitalism are both Chaotic governmental systems. They both depend on each individual doing the right thing in order to work successfully.
Communism and Facism are Lawful systems. There is a strict heirarchy to them, and individuality is highly discouraged in favor of the people or the state, respectively.
Everyone here seems to be too focused on the Lawful component, and not the Good component.
A Capitalist system could be a mercantile utopia, where the merchants set fair prices to benefit everyone, and use some of their profits to invest in others who are down on their luck. There is hardly any poverty because there is plenty for all to go around. Or it could be a cuthroat world of dog-eat-dog, where price gouging is common to attempt to put your competitors out of business, and where a handful of corporations struggle for ever increasing power and wealth at the expense of a large portion of the population. They're both Chaotic.
A Facist state could be a goose-stepping regime of flag waving patriots, accepting without question the word of their Supreme Leader, even when it involves the massacre of millions of people. Or it could be a benevolent dictatorship, where the Supreme Leader insures the people are taken care of, and the land is protected from invasion by the strong, spirited, volunteer military, who begin training as children. Both Lawful.
Law and Chaos take a backseat to Good v. Evil. After all, a single Evil act shames you in the eyes of your god, not so with a Chaotic act.
My Generic Paladin Code is taken from the movie Dragonheart:
A knight is sworn to valor,
His heart knows only virtue,
His blade defends the helpless,
His might upholds the weak,
His word speaks only truth,
His wrath undoes the wicked.
'Respecting legitimate authority' has much less to do with the authorities position on the Law/Chaos axis and more on whether it follows the Code.
Also, as noted in my OP, the paladin in question would be anarcho-capitalist. *Regardless whether you agree or not*, ancaps view a free market as spontaneously ordered - in other words, the free market provides a system of order without authority.
B~~%*$##. Anarchocapitalism would be full of official authorities and hierarchies! When X owns the ground Y lives on, he's an authority over Y. Due to difference in abilities and conditions, some people will soon own large areas of the world, and can make whatever law they wish upon those who live on their property. And when you own an island and outlaw people from approaching the island, everyone who lives there will be stuck and has to follow the laws made by the owner - or he'll have the right to expel them from his property (i.e., throw them in the sea).
This is of course true in more cases than someone owning an island, it's true wherever someone has monopoly (even a local monopoly) on a certain necessary means of production - and with no state regulating monopolies, they will be dominant in no time.
And anarchocapitalism, objectivism and the like is all about the individuals freedoms - something usually connected to chaos.
"Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
That, to me, would be as much a description of objectivists as of chaotic people.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Many cases of monopolies and oligopolies arise out of government regulation in the industry.
Really? Like what?
I seem to recall the government breaking up monopolies... AT&T into the Baby Bells, because the company controlled ALL of the phone lines at the time.
Would you even be posting here if Microsoft had won their antitrust case? With IE the default (read: only) browser, Microsoft could have determined how and when you access the internet. Mozilla, Chrome, Opera, etc. would not exist, due to the IE code not being released.
Also, as noted in my OP, the paladin in question would be anarcho-capitalist. *Regardless whether you agree or not*, ancaps view a free market as spontaneously ordered - in other words, the free market provides a system of order without authority.b*%@%~#~. Anarchocapitalism would be full of official authorities and hierarchies! When X owns the ground Y lives on, he's an authority over Y. Due to difference in abilities and conditions, some people will soon own large areas of the world, and can make whatever law they wish upon those who live on their property. And when you own an island and outlaw people from approaching the island, everyone who lives there will be stuck and has to follow the laws made by the owner - or he'll have the right to expel them from his property (i.e., throw them in the sea).
This is of course true in more cases than someone owning an island, it's true wherever someone has monopoly (even a local monopoly) on a certain necessary means of production - and with no state regulating monopolies, they will be dominant in no time.
And anarchocapitalism, objectivism and the like is all about the individuals freedoms - something usually connected to chaos.
"Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
That, to me, would be as much a description of objectivists as of chaotic people.
As stated, I'm a minarchist. In my quote you kindly provided, I did say "whether you agree or not" - I simply stated what ancaps believe. I agree that they are wrong, and some rights must be protected by government. Also, please, PLEASE, stop equating libertarian with Objectivist. They aren't the same. It ticks me off and makes me want to start flame wars.
Many cases of monopolies and oligopolies arise out of government regulation in the industry.Really? Like what?
I seem to recall the government breaking up monopolies... AT&T into the Baby Bells, because the company controlled ALL of the phone lines at the time.
Would you even be posting here if Microsoft had won their antitrust case? With IE the default (read: only) browser, Microsoft could have determined how and when you access the internet. Mozilla, Chrome, Opera, etc. would not exist, due to the IE code not being released.
Actually, yes - I'm using Ubuntu Linux. Linux existed at the time of the anti-trust case, and while Mozilla Firefox didn't exist, Netscape certainly did.
As for state created monopolies, it was government subsidies that created the robber barons of the railroads, banking regulations that set up the poor competition in the financial sector and led to the recent (and retarded) bank bailouts, protectionism in the auto industry that required that particular episode of government funding to GM.
A paladin (LG) would likely try to foster a strong sense of community and interdependency, so the newly liberated territory would act as one and be able to defend itself from external threats.
Which an anarchist could very well do. Social anarchism is often very much about interdependency and community.
In real world (theoretical) terms, Socialism and Capitalism are both Chaotic governmental systems. They both depend on each individual doing the right thing in order to work successfully.
Communism and Facism are Lawful systems. There is a strict heirarchy to them, and individuality is highly discouraged in favor of the people or the state, respectively.
Pure communism is always classless and stateless. What strict hierarchies are you talking about? I'd agree to some extent that individuality is discouraged, though. Socialism is an economic system, and a communistic society IS socialistic.
Socialism is an economic principle where the people should own the means of production (or that no-one should own them, though these are essentially the same).A communism is a society that has abolished classes, the state, and private property. It has a socialistic economic system.
Capitalism is an economic principle where the means of production are owned by private entities, whether individuals or by the state (state capitalism).
A fascism is a society that has strong nationalism, authoritarian government, and a capitalist economic system.
A Capitalist system could be a mercantile utopia, where the merchants set fair prices to benefit everyone, and use some of their profits to invest in others who are down on their luck. There is hardly any poverty because there is plenty for all to go around. Or it could be a cuthroat world of dog-eat-dog, where price gouging is common to attempt to put your competitors out of business, and where a handful of corporations struggle for ever increasing power and wealth at the expense of a large portion of the population. They're both Chaotic.
A Facist state...
And this is why we're not discussing good and evil. Good and evil are far more subjective than law and chaos, even in D&D, and it's harder to connect them to IRL.
As stated, I'm a minarchist. In my quote you kindly provided, I did say "whether you agree or not" - I simply stated what ancaps believe. I agree that they are wrong, and some rights must be protected by government. Also, please, PLEASE, stop equating libertarian with Objectivist. They aren't the same. It ticks me off and makes me want to start flame wars.
Sorry, I should've read more carefully. I haven't equated libertarianism with objectivism though - I'm saying there's a strong connection between anarchocapitalism and objectivism.
This thread has nothing to do with gaming. Some people wish to talk about concepts so they have phrased a concept question in opposition to the standard interpretation of a game rule. It is as if the standard interpretation is held to be some sort of insult.
If you believe you can make a lawful good paladin for a particular cause go ahead in your own game. If you believe you have an interesting exception to the commonly held idea of the paladin post your exception in detail. Don't cling to unexpressed ideas and expect people will read your minds.
It is intellectual game playing to partially explain yourself and then redefine, or reveal your definitions, when others think they understand you. They do you a grace by answering your thread. Do them the courtesy of saying all of what you mean.
Sigurd
So, can a paladin be an anarchist?
I think paladins could believe in a variety of types of utopia, whether that's a utopian dictatorship or an anarchist utopia. Of course, such a paladin-approved utopia would presumably require a strict moral code; whether there's a strict political code is probably irrelevant.
I don't think this thread is even about paladins, honestly - I think a few people want, desperately so, for their ideal government to be touted as being "lawful good."
Do it somewhere else.
I had a character idea, and thought it would make for a good discussion to see if people thought a paladin could believe in anarchy. That is very much game related. The original idea was, "Can a paladin, as a lawful character, come to support anarchy (typically considered chaotic) without himself being chaotic?" I then shared my idea of why that was possible. When I realized I wasn't being understood, I clarified my terminology - I wasn't "revealing" something I had been hiding.
Now, there are other issues, not related to the game, that have crept into this thread, as often happens. This is in large part because people's reasoning has included placing certain systems into their own alignment interpretations. Thus, there is an element of, "Does this system fall under a certain alignment?"
Yeah, I'm guilty of this as well. I'll admit it. I follow thread drifts when they happen if I'm interested, because I like discussing such things. Doesn't mean that the entire thread is about the secondary topics, or that it should be moved or deleted. The only time I get irritated at people who respond to my threads are when they start insulting me, either directly or indirectly.
But in the interests of bringing back the original topic...
Regardless of what you believe about a given system (in this case, anarchy and capitalism), do you think someone who was lawful good could hold it without alignment change or violation of the paladinic code?
I realize this is somewhat between the GM and the players involved, but seeing the arguments and counterarguments is useful in making the case to a given GM.
I don't think this thread is even about paladins, honestly - I think a few people want, desperately so, for their ideal government to be touted as being "lawful good."
Do it somewhere else.
I don't want my ideal (lack of) government to be touted as lawful good. In fact, I don't like lawful a lot at all. Lawful is also about hailing tradition for traditions sake, something I disagree with.
Personally, I'm probably chaotic good or neutral good as a person.I'm saying anarchism or statism isn't about lawful vs. chaotic. Anarchism in itself has nothing to do with lawful vs. chaotic, an anarchistic society can be both chaotic and lawful. Since it lacks a central government, it's much dependent on the inhabitants.
Basically, a society has an alignment based on a combination of the alignment of it's rulers and an alignment of its inhabitants. In the case of an anarchistic society, those are the same; if the inhabitants are lawful, the society is, whereas in a statist society lawful inhabitants can be ruled by chaotic rulers and be of any alignment.
While going through some of my old posts, I stumbled across this thread, and noticed something very odd. It appears that at least the first page, possibly more, has vanished.
I'm not trying to resurrect old arguments here - I don't even believe some of the points I once made - I simply wanted to call attention to the odd technical malfunction.
LazarX - see my very last post. I'm not trying to revive an old argument, just point out a technical hiccup. I don't even agree with some of my old arguments.
First I'll dust off the old political science class stuff and say there is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist. The term is an oxymoron. An anarchist is opposed to all hierarchy. That means government, religion, and capitalist hierarchy. I know the term gets thrown around a lot these days, but if you are calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist please stop. You are a libertarian not an anarchist.
As far as the much more important gaming stuff goes... Lawful=Order. There's no judgement call to make there. I've actually enjoyed the way Paizo has highlighted that concept with things like the Hellkights. They only care about order and don't care if it is good evil or neither. Awesome concept.
An anarchist character could be CG, CN, or CE. So no paladins for you.
First I'll dust off the old political science class stuff and say there is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist. The term is an oxymoron. An anarchist is opposed to all hierarchy. That means government, religion, and capitalist hierarchy. I know the term gets thrown around a lot these days, but if you are calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist please stop. You are a libertarian not an anarchist.
As far as the much more important gaming stuff goes... Lawful=Order. There's no judgement call to make there. I've actually enjoyed the way Paizo has highlighted that concept with things like the Hellkights. They only care about order and don't care if it is good evil or neither. Awesome concept.
An anarchist character could be CG, CN, or CE. So no paladins for you.
You should really know better than to tell an anarchist what to do, even if you don't agree with them. And anarchy literally means "No Rulers," not no hierarchy (as long as its voluntary).
And as a paladin/monk/cleric of Irori i can see how i can come to the conclusion of anarchism. For the lawful side of the coin, in order for there too be rules they have to apply to everybody, including people who call themselves the government. Killing and stealing does not become a different thing when you call it war and taxation. Using deceitful cover words to hide your evil actions is definitely not the path to enlightenment. On the good side of the coin, there is a saying that "bad deeds lead to bad results." A good person would not feel comfortable working for an agency that tried to justify its murder and violence unless said person was suffering from stockholm.
As for other paladins, I don't think its likely that they would come to the same conclusion since they tend to dump Wisdom.
|
So, can a paladin be an anarchist?
Didn't want to threadjack this thread, but it made me wonder something else about alignments. (Particularly one of the reasons I think the ethical alignments are squirrelly.)
The Nonagression Principle, which some consider to be a fundemental tenet of anarchocapitalistic thought, basically says you cannot initiate agression against someone's person or property, you can only react to someone else's initiation of aggression. The principle itself doesn't advocate anarchy, but that becomes a logical conclusion of it.
So, if a paladin holds strictly to his principle as a deontological stance, he would still be lawful, but an anarchist, wouldn't he? He could still follow the paladin code - the part about respecting legitimate authority would simply mean he only respects authority when the ruled specifically agree to be ruled, and everything else is illegitimate.
Skipping out all the inevitable "Anarchy=BAD and WRONG and it means CHAOS" etc. Yes, I believe you could have an anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-syndacalist paladin. Holding to their own deontological principles and respecting the laws that people have chosen for themselves. They're more like to be one of Marmol's Anarchists with Adjectives than an anarcho-capitalist though :p!