Daily Anarchist Forum
June 18, 2018, 04:12:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 20 hard questions! Challenge  (Read 5727 times)
Abyssal Demon
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


View Profile
« on: August 14, 2013, 05:34:29 PM »

Hi everyone, I'm not an anarchist, but I think it's an interesting and moral stance, maybe you can convince me that anarchism is the answer, but there are many questions I need solutions to first... This is gonna be a long post with 20 questions, so sorry in advance for the length:

1. A functioning anarchist society would have to be based on the non-aggression principle and private property, right? But what if someone prints their own money, how could they be punished, legally? They're not hurting anyone directly by printing fake money, even though it leads to inflation. Are money gonna be "copyrighted"? Are courts gonna be flexible? And what about the gold standard, won't that give additional benefits to countries that already have a lot of gold stored?

2. Okay, let's say a country manages to become totally free. Naturally, a whole lot of people from all over the world will want to move there, how can we preserve forests and water reserves, if people wanna build a huge amount of new homes? How many people will own a local forest, and why will they get it, and not anyone else? How will the owners decide what to do with it? Democratically?

3. What about secret police, inside the free society and in potential threatening countries like Iran, North Korea and so on? Will we be able to legally fund them? If someone is caught wiretapping the homes of radical Muslims or some morbid gothic person, who have not yet done anything wrong, will the free voluntary courts be able to dismiss the charges against the spy because of security reasons? Can't this easily lead to oppression of minorities?

4. Who will decide how much pollution or radiation is tolerable on a property? Can't this lead to minorities with asthma and certain illnesses being legally trampled by the majority's opinions? What about patents and copyrights, people say 15 years is an adequate limit, why? How do we defend that philosophically? If we "just need a limit", could we also need a limit for how many acres of forests should be protected? What about levels of noise from neighbours or factors? And then suddenly we end up with specific laws again, instead of the simplistic beauty of the non-aggression principle?

5. There was a story a couple of years ago about some scientists who made a new virus that could be incredibly fatal and lead to civilizational damage, and they put the recipe out on the internet I think, I don't have the link to the story, but I'm sure you heard about it. How could we stop things like that? And people putting out recipes for bombs? Or people who have made bombs on their own property? There was even a Swede some years ago who made a nuclear reaction in his kitchen. They are not violating the NAP, so if someone were to kidnap these guys and put them in prison, and these prisoners would sue them, could the courts just "be reasonable" again, and not accept the charges?

6. Imagine this, you are now the president of Iraq, where Sunni extremists are killing Shia Muslims with carbombs all the time. How do you solve this? Can you solve this in a moral way without violating individual rights? Go against your principles and run a police state, and hope for a future in which people will be ready for something better?

7. Should civilians be allowed to own machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons, in case certain police and military groups band together to try to form a state? Would an enormously armed population lead to more peace?

8. So, there's no bank bailouts, right? What if a bank suffers a big robbery or cyber/terrorist attack, and this causes the bank's customers to lose their money? Is that simply a risk people will have to take?

9. Something like the FDA, how would that be handled? Of course private companies could do quality check of products, but would you have to look for their symbol on every product you buy? Or maybe shops could sell products from these quality ensurers only. But what about guns? Sure, gun stores could have signs like "We only sell guns to people with this and this license", but wouldn't gun shops who sold guns to anyone, including criminals, schizophrenics and so on, also have a good market and stay in business?

10. Really mentally ill people and heroin addicts, could we put them in mental hospitals and rehabilitation camps, and would the same system apply where courts could be reasonable if these people filed charges? And drop the charges? And if courts are gonna be flexible and there are no absolute laws, won't it be very easy for mafias or sneaky rich people to bribe the juryes, or just charge with a court that they own themselves, and get away with heinous stuff, or make innocent people fall guys? Can't this very easily lead to mafia wars or even civil wars?

11. Who will own the borders, military groups? And can they deny people access to pass? Should there be no borders? If so, then it will be very easy for terrorists to get in with chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons that could otherwise be easily detected. For example, the US has systems that can detect chemical weapons coming near it's borders, maybe also nuclear and biological weapons.

12. There's a suburban neighbourhood with a lot of homes who all share a water supply, what happens if the owners of the water raises the prices? People say that other water companies could drive in there with trucks of water and water bottles, really? One house uses quite a lot of water, and transportation is expensive... But maybe the owners of the homes could own the water reserves? I've heard that contracts in the past used to include water access, that you wouldn't have to pay for.

13. I see that some anarchists are anti-war, well, if we hadn't stopped Hitler and Japan, they would increase their evil and possibly eventually conquer the world. If we faced the same threat today, isn't it right to strike pre-emptively? Iran are now working on clandestine nuclear programs, and their nutjob leaders (who also terrorize their own people obviously) have prophecies that the end times will begin after Judeo Christian civilization is destroyed, let's say our spies in Iran warn us that the nuclear weapons are almost complete, isn't it right to attack them and disarm them?

14. What will be the hardest challenges in a free society? Will people stop funding the military because they forget it's importance? Will a group of policemen and/or military men band together to form a state, and we'll have to fight them? Will societal attitudes lead to laws and possibly even a government again? Because "people aren't paying enough to the military or to people who can't afford health insurance", etc

15. Telling kids about hell or circumcising them, will that be reason for a voluntary child protective service to take the kids?

16. A lot of these dilemmas need the general population, who are gonna be jurymen in courts and so on, to have reasonable values, so, is a free society only possible if the philosophical foundation in people's lives are changing first? What about technology, is a free society only possible in our time of technology and information, or could it have worked in any age and place in history? Before modern detective work, wouldn't it be a lot easier to get away with crimes, and therefore you may have needed a fierce state in the past to uphold some order?

17. Many conservatives will think that  it's good for kids to see some horrible stuff (traffic accidents, Holocaust footage) and maybe even be slapped lightly if they do something wrong in order for them to behave and to be aware of the dangers of the world, so they can protect it when they get older. If we give our kids a purely wonderful childhood with no "darkness", won't they be, on some emotional level, oblivious to the fact that there are really dangerous people in the world we need to protect ourselves from? If we as humans are born "gorillas", don't we need discipline in childhood to not turn out to be violent and sociopathic bastards?

18. Is it good to campaign for conservative or minarchist parties to give people a taste of the wonders of freedom and personal responsibility? I know that many libertarians and anarchists refuse to vote and will not encourage others to vote, but is that really smart?

19. What would you say to so-called "socialist anarchists"? People who want no hierarchy and no private property and no money? How to win these people over? Do they need an explanation of how the economy works, or something else?

20. It's always important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does every intelligent person have a "blind spot"? Ayn Rand was brilliant, but couldn't imagine a society with no state. Stephen Hawking is brilliant, but can't imagine how there could be a creator of the universe. Stefan Molyneux is brilliant, but he doesn't seem to understand determinism. (And regarding that, do you people believe in free will? I personally don't, but I think freedom is still a very moral and also powerful stance that unleashes human beings' talent, creativity and potential)
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2013, 06:44:25 PM »

Hi everyone, I'm not an anarchist, but I think it's an interesting and moral stance, maybe you can convince me that anarchism is the answer, but there are many questions I need solutions to first... This is gonna be a long post with 20 questions, so sorry in advance for the length:

Long post indeed.  In order to not rehash 20 topics in a single thread, I will do my best to direct you to other threads that answer your questions.  Otherwise every topic will probably cause a discussion due to some slight misunderstanding or disagreement.  I will update my post as I get around to each one (just in case).

By the way, there are several different groups claiming to be anarchists.  They can be extremely different.  This website is based around anarcho-capitalism, or voluntarism, or some other term of similar meaning.  I mention this due to some of the items I read in your post suggested a conflation of ancap, democracy, and ancom/soc.    

I hope you stick around and make some contributions to the threads and introduce yourself in the intro section.  Welcome to Daily Anarchist.

Anarcho-Capitalist Reference List
Search Daily Anarchist

1. A functioning anarchist society would have to be based on the non-aggression principle and private property, right? But what if someone prints their own money, how could they be punished, legally? They're not hurting anyone directly by printing fake money, even though it leads to inflation. Are money gonna be "copyrighted"? Are courts gonna be flexible? And what about the gold standard, won't that give additional benefits to countries that already have a lot of gold stored?

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1762.0.html
"The money suply in the anarco-capitalist system"

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1020.0.html
"A question for Free Banking advocates"

2. Okay, let's say a country manages to become totally free. Naturally, a whole lot of people from all over the world will want to move there, how can we preserve forests and water reserves, if people wanna build a huge amount of new homes? How many people will own a local forest, and why will they get it, and not anyone else? How will the owners decide what to do with it? Democratically?

The suggestion of a democratic approach in anarchy baffles me.  That is a form of government.

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2658.0.html
"Tragedy of the Commons - Stossel"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0vmP7HoFI4
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0vmP7HoFI4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0vmP7HoFI4</a>

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,899.0.html
"Climate change"  (really about private ownership of currently government claimed land)

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2073.0.html
"What would happen to the States property ?"

http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/molyneux/molyneux4.html
Anarchy and the 'Problem of the Commons'  - Linked from Anarcho-Capitalist Reference List

3. What about secret police, inside the free society and in potential threatening countries like Iran, North Korea and so on? Will we be able to legally fund them? If someone is caught wiretapping the homes of radical Muslims or some morbid gothic person, who have not yet done anything wrong, will the free voluntary courts be able to dismiss the charges against the spy because of security reasons? Can't this easily lead to oppression of minorities?

Secret police of whom?  Spy on what?  Why?  If there is no government to spy on, there is no need of a spy.

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2372.0.html
"70% chance of war with N. Korea. Economic experts warn of WWIII"

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2339.0.html
"North Korea increasing tensions. Threatening war at any moment"

4. Who will decide how much pollution or radiation is tolerable on a property? Can't this lead to minorities with asthma and certain illnesses being legally trampled by the majority's opinions? What about patents and copyrights, people say 15 years is an adequate limit, why? How do we defend that philosophically? If we "just need a limit", could we also need a limit for how many acres of forests should be protected? What about levels of noise from neighbours or factors? And then suddenly we end up with specific laws again, instead of the simplistic beauty of the non-aggression principle?

You seem to be approaching all of these from the perspective that there is a government deciding what is right or acceptable.  

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2064.0.html
"Air pollution"

5. There was a story a couple of years ago about some scientists who made a new virus that could be incredibly fatal and lead to civilizational damage, and they put the recipe out on the internet I think, I don't have the link to the story, but I'm sure you heard about it. How could we stop things like that? And people putting out recipes for bombs? Or people who have made bombs on their own property? There was even a Swede some years ago who made a nuclear reaction in his kitchen. They are not violating the NAP, so if someone were to kidnap these guys and put them in prison, and these prisoners would sue them, could the courts just "be reasonable" again, and not accept the charges?

A recipe for a virus?  You don't cook them up.  

Explosives and dangerous materials have perfectly legitimate reasons, even at someones home.  Do you not have some cleaning fluid that is absolutely deadly, and would be a horrible thing to go pour in your neighbors well?  

Why would someone kidnap them if they have not done any harm?  If they defended themselves with deadly force from a kidnapping, would you consider them murders?  If you defended yourself with deadly force from some unknown person attempting to kidnap you right now, would you consider yourself a murderer?  

6. Imagine this, you are now the president of Iraq, where Sunni extremists are killing Shia Muslims with carbombs all the time. How do you solve this? Can you solve this in a moral way without violating individual rights? Go against your principles and run a police state, and hope for a future in which people will be ready for something better?

You do get that we advocate anarchy right?

7. Should civilians be allowed to own machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons, in case certain police and military groups band together to try to form a state? Would an enormously armed population lead to more peace?

This has some overlap with 14.

The concept of a free market is competition.  If one group attempts to create a government (racketeering), another will offer their protection service and take all the business (resources) required to maintain a presence in the area.  

No matter how people try to justify it, as protection or necessary, remember that the people that make and use today's advanced weapons are still just people.  If there is a market for weapons to protect the country, there will still be people to create them and people to defend the country.  That resource doesn't go away just because people resist the theft and eventual enslavement of themselves to a government.  

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1446.0.html
"Anarchocapitalism leads to Minarchism with Monopolies?"

8. So, there's no bank bailouts, right? What if a bank suffers a big robbery or cyber/terrorist attack, and this causes the bank's customers to lose their money? Is that simply a risk people will have to take?

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1086.0.html
"Savings and Loan Crisis of the 80's"

Personally I consider anything less than 100% reserve banking to be fraud (posted in thread from question 1).  That means that the bank always has all of your money allocated and nothing more.  That means that a bank failure doesn't cause your money to vanish in the fractional reserve banking fraudulence.  Undoubtedly there will be insurance and security available as well.  The level of risk people take will be up to them.

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1679.0.html
"Get your money out now? It may be a good idea."

There may not even be need of banks as we have them now:
https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2618.0.html
"It's clear that Bitcoin was designed to go for fiat's jugular (especially USD)"

9. Something like the FDA, how would that be handled? Of course private companies could do quality check of products, but would you have to look for their symbol on every product you buy? Or maybe shops could sell products from these quality ensurers only. But what about guns? Sure, gun stores could have signs like "We only sell guns to people with this and this license", but wouldn't gun shops who sold guns to anyone, including criminals, schizophrenics and so on, also have a good market and stay in business?

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1999.msg16027.html
"An-Cap Presentation"

Have you heard of Underwriters Laboratories (UL)?  They test things that don't require testing because companies want their approval.  Companies pay a lot of money to get them to run all sorts of products through the gauntlet.  Do you not think that there will be people that want assurance of quality for all sorts of things?  Companies that own roads will likely want an assurance (license) saying you know how to drive too.  

By having its economic system as free as posible. This raises standards of living. Also by the free pople of thi country follow a true constitution and back this.
Lets use an example:
Chick fila:  the owner said he supported traditional marriage. Theres nothing wrong with what he himself believes. It is his buisness and he has a right to speak freely. As a free sociaty the people can chosse to eat there or not eat there. In a true capitalistic society this may help or hurt him because of buisness. If the majority of people do not agree they will not eat there and he loses buisness and goes bankrupt and closes. If not, props to him for standing by what he believes. However as a true free people we must accept this, that people are free. The current left side of politics can not accept this. They think its reulsive what he said. In reality, its his choice and right.

Interesting example you give.  The result was actually positive for his company.  There was a similar event with Whole Foods.  In both examples, the organization got a boost in sales.

The reason for this is because in the market before they took a stance, 99% of the people simply never bothered to go there in the first place, knowing nothing of the owners.  Once something was said, even if only 5% of the population agrees with their stance, that is more of the market than they previously had.  They may lose 95% of the old customers they had, but 5% of the larger overall population is a huge boon for the company.  

In your example, the feedback mechanism would be ostracism.  Hopefully the gun suppliers/manufactures would not be doing business with the store owner, as they would lose business at all the other stores, effectively cutting off the supply to the offending store.  If not, perhaps it becomes a challenge for the store owner to find something to eat as all the locals know him and what he is doing. 

10.  Really mentally ill people and heroin addicts, could we put them in mental hospitals and rehabilitation camps, and would the same system apply where courts could be reasonable if these people filed charges? And drop the charges? And if courts are gonna be flexible and there are no absolute laws, won't it be very easy for mafias or sneaky rich people to bribe the juryes, or just charge with a court that they own themselves, and get away with heinous stuff, or make innocent people fall guys? Can't this very easily lead to mafia wars or even civil wars?

What was the question?

11. Who will own the borders, military groups? And can they deny people access to pass? Should there be no borders? If so, then it will be very easy for terrorists to get in with chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons that could otherwise be easily detected. For example, the US has systems that can detect chemical weapons coming near it's borders, maybe also nuclear and biological weapons.

Do you really believe the government is currently fully stopping people and things from coming into the USA?  Really?  

12. There's a suburban neighbourhood with a lot of homes who all share a water supply, what happens if the owners of the water raises the prices? People say that other water companies could drive in there with trucks of water and water bottles, really? One house uses quite a lot of water, and transportation is expensive... But maybe the owners of the homes could own the water reserves? I've heard that contracts in the past used to include water access, that you wouldn't have to pay for.

This question is usually posed as: "What if someone buys all the roads in my neighborhood?"

Funny: https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2603.0.html

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2067.0.html
"The Great road race"

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1666.0.html
"Roads within the natural order of things"

13.  I see that some anarchists are anti-war, well, if we hadn't stopped Hitler and Japan, they would increase their evil and possibly eventually conquer the world. If we faced the same threat today, isn't it right to strike pre-emptively? Iran are now working on clandestine nuclear programs, and their nutjob leaders (who also terrorize their own people obviously) have prophecies that the end times will begin after Judeo Christian civilization is destroyed, let's say our spies in Iran warn us that the nuclear weapons are almost complete, isn't it right to attack them and disarm them?

While we may be anti-war, the bulk are certainly not pacifists.  

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2100.0/viewResults.html
"Violence?"

Judeo Christian does not equal ancap.  Our spies?  You seem to be approaching things from a government perspective again.  

14. What will be the hardest challenges in a free society? Will people stop funding the military because they forget it's importance? Will a group of policemen and/or military men band together to form a state, and we'll have to fight them? Will societal attitudes lead to laws and possibly even a government again? Because "people aren't paying enough to the military or to people who can't afford health insurance", etc

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,719.0.html
"Free Market Law and Security"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw</a>

My assumption of the biggest challenge is existing governments afraid of a change in the current power structure.  Just as would be kings/emperors undermined preexisting republics and fought against republics that took their power, so too do those running the republics fight against anarchy.  "It takes an emperor to rule an empire."

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,929.0.html
"Somalia"

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1961.0.html
"Questions about Anarcho-capitalism and military."

15. Telling kids about hell or circumcising them, will that be reason for a voluntary child protective service to take the kids?

"... voluntary ... to take..." ?   Government perspective again.  

16. A lot of these dilemmas need the general population, who are gonna be jurymen in courts and so on, to have reasonable values, so, is a free society only possible if the philosophical foundation in people's lives are changing first? What about technology, is a free society only possible in our time of technology and information, or could it have worked in any age and place in history? Before modern detective work, wouldn't it be a lot easier to get away with crimes, and therefore you may have needed a fierce state in the past to uphold some order?

The first line is an assumption of government forcing a jury trial, and that an entire country will overthrow a government through it.  

The ancient Celts were an ancap like structure.  

How does a fierce state reduce crime other than making its own crime 'legal'?  Do you think a fierce state causes less innocent people to be blamed for crime they did not commit?  How is that 'order'?  Have you seen Braveheart?

17. Many conservatives will think that  it's good for kids to see some horrible stuff (traffic accidents, Holocaust footage) and maybe even be slapped lightly if they do something wrong in order for them to behave and to be aware of the dangers of the world, so they can protect it when they get older. If we give our kids a purely wonderful childhood with no "darkness", won't they be, on some emotional level, oblivious to the fact that there are really dangerous people in the world we need to protect ourselves from? If we as humans are born "gorillas", don't we need discipline in childhood to not turn out to be violent and sociopathic bastards?

Some kids in Africa are armed with machine guns and run around killing people.  Personally I suspect putting this stuff in kids minds just helps create more of it in the future.  It isn't like they won't encounter it anyway.  

18. Is it good to campaign for conservative or minarchist parties to give people a taste of the wonders of freedom and personal responsibility? I know that many libertarians and anarchists refuse to vote and will not encourage others to vote, but is that really smart?

There is debate on that.  Here is the most recent thread on the topic:
https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2638.0.html
"Offending Activists"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiAThxUM_Mg
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiAThxUM_Mg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiAThxUM_Mg</a>

19. What would you say to so-called "socialist anarchists"? People who want no hierarchy and no private property and no money? How to win these people over? Do they need an explanation of how the economy works, or something else?

I could link threads, but they are pretty harsh reads.  Suffice it to say we don't get along with most of them.  Conversion is near impossible.  

20. It's always important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does every intelligent person have a "blind spot"? Ayn Rand was brilliant, but couldn't imagine a society with no state. Stephen Hawking is brilliant, but can't imagine how there could be a creator of the universe. Stefan Molyneux is brilliant, but he doesn't seem to understand determinism. (And regarding that, do you people believe in free will? I personally don't, but I think freedom is still a very moral and also powerful stance that unleashes human beings' talent, creativity and potential)

That is really more of a religious question than political/economic.  

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,925.0.html
"free will vs determinism"

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,774.0.html
"Is Anarcho-Capitalism Incompatible With Christianity?"

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,803.0.html
"Blog on Christianity and Anarchism"
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 12:27:41 AM by Syock » Logged

ff42
Full Member
***
Posts: 186


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2013, 07:23:04 PM »

It doesn't really matter.  Either the initial use of force(/fraud) is ethical or it isn't.    As long as there is not initial violence (or the threat thereof) I do not care what happens.

 
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2013, 07:43:43 PM »

Quote
1. A functioning anarchist society would have to be based on the non-aggression principle and private property, right? But what if someone prints their own money, how could they be punished, legally? They're not hurting anyone directly by printing fake money, even though it leads to inflation. Are money gonna be "copyrighted"? Are courts gonna be flexible? And what about the gold standard, won't that give additional benefits to countries that already have a lot of gold stored?

People can put whatever they want on a piece of paper. They can even call it money. That doesn't mean people are going to use it. I know I wouldn't.

Quote
2. Okay, let's say a country manages to become totally free. Naturally, a whole lot of people from all over the world will want to move there, how can we preserve forests and water reserves, if people wanna build a huge amount of new homes? How many people will own a local forest, and why will they get it, and not anyone else? How will the owners decide what to do with it? Democratically?

I imagine someone will buy the land similar to what Steve Irwin was doing when he was alive (someone else might be doing it too) what Irwin did was buy huge amounts of land in Australia and he hired Rangers to patrol it for poachers and other unwelcome trespassers.

Democracy is a statist thing, we aren't statists. The owners will do with the land as they see fit in a manner that they desire. Maybe they'll vote on it if there are more than one. I don't know. Personally if it were me I'd fence off my land and not bother with what other people chose to do with theirs.

Quote
What about secret police, inside the free society and in potential threatening countries like Iran, North Korea and so on? Will we be able to legally fund them? If someone is caught wiretapping the homes of radical Muslims or some morbid gothic person, who have not yet done anything wrong, will the free voluntary courts be able to dismiss the charges against the spy because of security reasons? Can't this easily lead to oppression of minorities?

I'm not going to fund secret police and I'll contract with a defence agency so that if someone is caught spying on me I'd have the agency handle it or something. I'm not funding spies I don't want people to go and antagonize other people especially with money I paid them, fuck that.

Quote
4. Who will decide how much pollution or radiation is tolerable on a property? Can't this lead to minorities with asthma and certain illnesses being legally trampled by the majority's opinions? What about patents and copyrights, people say 15 years is an adequate limit, why? How do we defend that philosophically? If we "just need a limit", could we also need a limit for how many acres of forests should be protected? What about levels of noise from neighbours or factors? And then suddenly we end up with specific laws again, instead of the simplistic beauty of the non-aggression principle?

Pollution violates property rights, so it violates the NAP. I don't believe in IP I don't think many here do.

Quote
5. There was a story a couple of years ago about some scientists who made a new virus that could be incredibly fatal and lead to civilizational damage, and they put the recipe out on the internet I think, I don't have the link to the story, but I'm sure you heard about it. How could we stop things like that? And people putting out recipes for bombs? Or people who have made bombs on their own property? There was even a Swede some years ago who made a nuclear reaction in his kitchen. They are not violating the NAP, so if someone were to kidnap these guys and put them in prison, and these prisoners would sue them, could the courts just "be reasonable" again, and not accept the charges?


Any court that dismissed such a case would lose my business.

Quote
6. Imagine this, you are now the president of Iraq, where Sunni extremists are killing Shia Muslims with carbombs all the time. How do you solve this? Can you solve this in a moral way without violating individual rights? Go against your principles and run a police state, and hope for a future in which people will be ready for something better?

No you can't solve it morally you're the president. Morality left the scenario before the second comma.

Quote
7. Should civilians be allowed to own machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons, in case certain police and military groups band together to try to form a state? Would an enormously armed population lead to more peace?

 People have property rights. The only way they are going to exercise their rights is if they can defend themselves. As to whether or not ubiquitous weapon ownership would lead to peace, you can look at Chicago for an example of what a society where law abiding citizens can't own weapons looks like. 500 murders a year... Yeah I think people owning weapons would cut down on violent crime. It's alot easier to mug someone when you can reasonably assume that you're going to be the best armed individual in the encounter.

Quote
8. So, there's no bank bailouts, right? What if a bank suffers a big robbery or cyber/terrorist attack, and this causes the bank's customers to lose their money? Is that simply a risk people will have to take?
Who's going to bailout a bank? I'm not. If they suffer a robbery or cyber attack then I guess they lose that stuff. I suppose the bank could have insurance to help out against such an eventuality. The customers could have insurance too.

Quote
9. Something like the FDA, how would that be handled? Of course private companies could do quality check of products, but would you have to look for their symbol on every product you buy? Or maybe shops could sell products from these quality ensurers only. But what about guns? Sure, gun stores could have signs like "We only sell guns to people with this and this license", but wouldn't gun shops who sold guns to anyone, including criminals, schizophrenics and so on, also have a good market and stay in business?

Some how our species didn't die before the FDA existed. I'm fairly sure that we can replicate those results. As far as gun shops go they can and will sell guns to whomever they want.


Quote
10. Really mentally ill people and heroin addicts, could we put them in mental hospitals and rehabilitation camps, and would the same system apply where courts could be reasonable if these people filed charges? And drop the charges? And if courts are gonna be flexible and there are no absolute laws, won't it be very easy for mafias or sneaky rich people to bribe the juryes, or just charge with a court that they own themselves, and get away with heinous stuff, or make innocent people fall guys? Can't this very easily lead to mafia wars or even civil wars?

I don't think psychologists agree on what "mentally ill" actually means and drug addiction isn't my concern. If I like the addict I might try to help them but I can't save them only they can do that. Judges that take bribes are going to go out of business the only thing that keeps them in business is there reputation. If they don't have that they're done  in the justice market. Part of arbitration is that both parties have to agree to an arbiter and a court. Who's going to willing use a court the other guy owns? NO ONE!

Quote
11. Who will own the borders, military groups? And can they deny people access to pass? Should there be no borders? If so, then it will be very easy for terrorists to get in with chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons that could otherwise be easily detected. For example, the US has systems that can detect chemical weapons coming near it's borders, maybe also nuclear and biological weapons.


Borders are a statist thing. The US can't stop people from crossing the borders... I'm convinced that the "terrorists" are a largely fictitious thing. Like the Ninja and what not. It's a story the propaganda machine uses to insight fear inorder to get people on board  with more state control.

Quote
12. There's a suburban neighbourhood with a lot of homes who all share a water supply, what happens if the owners of the water raises the prices? People say that other water companies could drive in there with trucks of water and water bottles, really? One house uses quite a lot of water, and transportation is expensive... But maybe the owners of the homes could own the water reserves? I've heard that contracts in the past used to include water access, that you wouldn't have to pay for.
I'm going to control the water of my house. But if other people don't then they fucked up...


Quote
13. I see that some anarchists are anti-war, well, if we hadn't stopped Hitler and Japan, they would increase their evil and possibly eventually conquer the world. If we faced the same threat today, isn't it right to strike pre-emptively? Iran are now working on clandestine nuclear programs, and their nutjob leaders (who also terrorize their own people obviously) have prophecies that the end times will begin after Judeo Christian civilization is destroyed, let's say our spies in Iran warn us that the nuclear weapons are almost complete, isn't it right to attack them and disarm them?

I think there's a chance that you might attack me or someone else so I kill you seem reasonable? You can't save people, especially from themselves. People appeased Hitler instead of crushing him when he started invading places. The solution to Hitler is to crush him into the ground when he starts violating property rights. Only an idiot is against self defence.


Quote
14. What will be the hardest challenges in a free society? Will people stop funding the military because they forget it's importance? Will a group of policemen and/or military men band together to form a state, and we'll have to fight them? Will societal attitudes lead to laws and possibly even a government again? Because "people aren't paying enough to the military or to people who can't afford health insurance", etc

I've never heard of someone who can see the future.

Quote
15. Telling kids about hell or circumcising them, will that be reason for a voluntary child protective service to take the kids?

Would telling your kids about murderers rapists etc... constitute a reason for child protective services to step in and take kids? I don't think so, and the difference between hell and rapists murderers etc... is that murderers and rapists are real.

Quote
16. A lot of these dilemmas need the general population, who are gonna be jurymen in courts and so on, to have reasonable values, so, is a free society only possible if the philosophical foundation in people's lives are changing first? What about technology, is a free society only possible in our time of technology and information, or could it have worked in any age and place in history? Before modern detective work, wouldn't it be a lot easier to get away with crimes, and therefore you may have needed a fierce state in the past to uphold some order?


If anything it would have been simpler to create an anarchist society back in the day when distance actually meant something.

Quote
17. Many conservatives will think that  it's good for kids to see some horrible stuff (traffic accidents, Holocaust footage) and maybe even be slapped lightly if they do something wrong in order for them to behave and to be aware of the dangers of the world, so they can protect it when they get older. If we give our kids a purely wonderful childhood with no "darkness", won't they be, on some emotional level, oblivious to the fact that there are really dangerous people in the world we need to protect ourselves from? If we as humans are born "gorillas", don't we need discipline in childhood to not turn out to be violent and sociopathic bastards?

Shielding your kids from the horror and brutality in the world does them a disservice imo. There are evil men out there that will hurt them and take their shit they should be prepared to face such circumstances.

Quote
18. Is it good to campaign for conservative or minarchist parties to give people a taste of the wonders of freedom and personal responsibility? I know that many libertarians and anarchists refuse to vote and will not encourage others to vote, but is that really smart?

Voting is at best a waste of time. I would say it's harmful to anarchism. I don't need or want a master so why am I going to vote for one? Fuck that.


Quote
19. What would you say to so-called "socialist anarchists"? People who want no hierarchy and no private property and no money? How to win these people over? Do they need an explanation of how the economy works, or something else?

They won't listen. You can't convince people of anything.


Quote
20. It's always important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does every intelligent person have a "blind spot"? Ayn Rand was brilliant, but couldn't imagine a society with no state. Stephen Hawking is brilliant, but can't imagine how there could be a creator of the universe. Stefan Molyneux is brilliant, but he doesn't seem to understand determinism. (And regarding that, do you people believe in free will? I personally don't, but I think freedom is still a very moral and also powerful stance that unleashes human beings' talent, creativity and potential)

I don't know if everyone has a "blind spot".

I believe in free will. I don't believe in fate, gods, magic etc...








 





« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 10:19:57 PM by MAM » Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Abyssal Demon
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2013, 11:17:13 AM »

Thanks for the answers guys. Smiley I think some of my questions were misunderstood or avoided, I guess I'll have time to clarify later when I get time, but still, great answers. Smiley
Logged
albert h n
Newbie
*
Posts: 39


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2013, 12:52:55 PM »

Welcome Demon.
You ask the same questions that all newcomers ask when they are first exposed to the ideas.
People have answered these questions over and over for over a hundred years.
We will not be able to get to the bottom of the deep meaning of ancap philosophy in a limited forum blog.
May I suggest:
1. In the general forum there is a very long reference list answering all your questions. It could literally take many years to study it all.
2. Break down your questions by priority and present them one at a time.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2013, 01:08:32 PM »

Welcome Demon.
You ask the same questions that all newcomers ask when they are first exposed to the ideas.
People have answered these questions over and over for over a hundred years.
We will not be able to get to the bottom of the deep meaning of ancap philosophy in a limited forum blog.
May I suggest:
1. In the general forum there is a very long reference list answering all your questions. It could literally take many years to study it all.
2. Break down your questions by priority and present them one at a time.

Very true.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
eglove
Newbie
*
Posts: 27



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2013, 03:41:32 PM »

This is gonna be a long post with 20 questions, so sorry in advance for the length:

I made you a long response.

Here is the full feed of the other long responses I've made.
Logged

Abyssal Demon
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2013, 06:23:16 AM »

Great answers Thorax, I'm starting to get a clearer picture, and a free society doesn't seem so elusive as it used to. But still, I think the biggest problem I have with all this is that you guys seem to underestimate the dangers of the world, since you are (in all scenarios) anti-border, anti-spies, anti-war. Now, I know you will think I'm paranoid and that this is government propaganda, but take Iran again. Do you know what it feels like to be religious? And really believe it? If you were raised religious as a kid, you probably know. The leaders of Iran aren't semi-religious, they are oppressing women and executing gay people because of their religion. Their prophecy says that the end times will begin when western civilization is destroyed. They have banned foreign inspectors to their nuclear program. Is that really something you would ignore? No spies, no possibility of pre-emptive strikes?

You all mention the border with Canada, but Canada is already a very peaceful and civilized country. Think about all the countries that are bordering Russia. They all have a lot of security there for a reason. Russia is allied with Iran and Syria and other bad regimes. Hypothetically, what if Assad used his Russian allies to strike a large chemical attack in another European country who supports the rebels? A simple border where people are checked before going in could fix this problem.

And just as a hypothetical, what if you managed to become a free society, and you had suicide bombers coming in and murdering your people every day, from the outside? Like Israel's situation before they put up fences.

I'm just saying, if we want a free society, this is the stuff that people will have objections too, and they need good solutions.
Logged
eglove
Newbie
*
Posts: 27



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2013, 10:32:18 AM »

Great answers Thorax, I'm starting to get a clearer picture, and a free society doesn't seem so elusive as it used to. But still, I think the biggest problem I have with all this is that you guys seem to underestimate the dangers of the world, since you are (in all scenarios) anti-border, anti-spies, anti-war. Now, I know you will think I'm paranoid and that this is government propaganda, but take Iran again. Do you know what it feels like to be religious? And really believe it? If you were raised religious as a kid, you probably know. The leaders of Iran aren't semi-religious, they are oppressing women and executing gay people because of their religion. Their prophecy says that the end times will begin when western civilization is destroyed. They have banned foreign inspectors to their nuclear program. Is that really something you would ignore? No spies, no possibility of pre-emptive strikes?

You all mention the border with Canada, but Canada is already a very peaceful and civilized country. Think about all the countries that are bordering Russia. They all have a lot of security there for a reason. Russia is allied with Iran and Syria and other bad regimes. Hypothetically, what if Assad used his Russian allies to strike a large chemical attack in another European country who supports the rebels? A simple border where people are checked before going in could fix this problem.

And just as a hypothetical, what if you managed to become a free society, and you had suicide bombers coming in and murdering your people every day, from the outside? Like Israel's situation before they put up fences.

I'm just saying, if we want a free society, this is the stuff that people will have objections too, and they need good solutions.

Well it sounds like you've got this idea that people attack countries for their freedoms. >.< Any problems with Iran now is due to the U.S. government, that's a known fact. The U.S. involvement in religious wars has made it an enemy of the world. So if any suicide bombers are going to pour into the U.S. from the outside, it's going to happen in this society not an AnCap one.

Security companies react to threats accordingly and problems are solved accordingly, just like now, but more efficiently. Nobody can say with honesty that crime somehow won't happen without government, but there would undoubtedly be less (with the lack of drugs wars and "terrorist" wars).

That being said you are about 10x more likely to be killed by a baby that a suicide bomber. Problems in other countries are their problems, when you make it your problem is becomes your problem. 'Nuff said.
Logged

MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2013, 01:58:49 PM »

Great answers Thorax, I'm starting to get a clearer picture, and a free society doesn't seem so elusive as it used to. But still, I think the biggest problem I have with all this is that you guys seem to underestimate the dangers of the world, since you are (in all scenarios) anti-border, anti-spies, anti-war. Now, I know you will think I'm paranoid and that this is government propaganda, but take Iran again. Do you know what it feels like to be religious? And really believe it? If you were raised religious as a kid, you probably know. The leaders of Iran aren't semi-religious, they are oppressing women and executing gay people because of their religion. Their prophecy says that the end times will begin when western civilization is destroyed. They have banned foreign inspectors to their nuclear program. Is that really something you would ignore? No spies, no possibility of pre-emptive strikes?

You all mention the border with Canada, but Canada is already a very peaceful and civilized country. Think about all the countries that are bordering Russia. They all have a lot of security there for a reason. Russia is allied with Iran and Syria and other bad regimes. Hypothetically, what if Assad used his Russian allies to strike a large chemical attack in another European country who supports the rebels? A simple border where people are checked before going in could fix this problem.

And just as a hypothetical, what if you managed to become a free society, and you had suicide bombers coming in and murdering your people every day, from the outside? Like Israel's situation before they put up fences.

I'm just saying, if we want a free society, this is the stuff that people will have objections too, and they need good solutions.

Preemptive strikes will cause Iran to hate us. Minding your business is going to generate alot less hostility.

The middle eastern muslims don't hate the US for the "freedoms" like the neocons like to spout. They hate the US because the US occupies their countries and tell them how to live their lives.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2013, 04:09:44 PM »

And just as a hypothetical, what if you managed to become a free society, and you had suicide bombers coming in and murdering your people every day, from the outside? Like Israel's situation before they put up fences.

I'm just saying, if we want a free society, this is the stuff that people will have objections too, and they need good solutions.

To be fair about Israel, they were essentially taking that land and claiming it at the end of WWII.  The modern state of Israel as we know it didn't exist before that.  They choose to be there, as an aggressive group, the most recent invader of that extremely fought over bit of land. 

There is other land.  There is land that the people of Israel would be welcomed to.  That is not the choice they made.   

Making any kind of comparison to such an aggressive state as the USA or Israel has to take into account those states actions.
Logged

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!