Daily Anarchist Forum

Questions And Challenges => Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism => Topic started by: wissler on March 29, 2011, 05:12:44 PM



Title: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on March 29, 2011, 05:12:44 PM
Hello Daily Anarchists,

If you are so inclined, I have written an essay I would like you offer against anarchism. I think this is a different sort of case than is usually presented, because I am one who actually takes consent seriously while still arguing against anarchism and for government of a given kind. If you could give me feedback in the form of logical reasons why you find the essay unconvincing I would appreciate it.

Thanks Seth for allowing me to post this here:

http://www.forindividualrights.com/against_anarchism.pdf


Shayne


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 07, 2011, 12:20:26 AM
I started reading it, but after several pages I got the feeling it's going to turn into a definition game, so I just wanted to address what I've read so far, see how you respond, and then continue later.

If people voluntarily associate with each other and voluntarily create rules amongst themselves, then I wouldn't call that government. I'd call that a social club, or in some cases a collective, or a business. A lot hinges on what you mean by the word "jurisdiction" when you defined government. If a person's jurisdiction is themselves and their property, then fine, they can voluntarily play whatever games they want. If that "jurisdiction" extends over people and property outside of the club, then the initiation of force starts there, and that's when I stop respecting that organization, and it becomes criminal.

I am sorry I didn't read the whole thing to start, but I made a partial effort, which is better than the typical tl;dr response you were expecting   ;D


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 07, 2011, 10:46:26 PM
Thanks for the reply. To answer the pertinent question:

"If that "jurisdiction" extends over people and property outside of the club, then the initiation of force starts there, and that's when I stop respecting that organization, and it becomes criminal."

I disagree with this, because it depends. As I argue in the essay, we all have a right to come to another's defense, wherever on Earth we want. If someone is being robbed or kidnapped or otherwise their rights are being violated, we all have an individual right to help. Therefore, we have a right to form a systematic organization to help, in whatever jurisdiction we prescribe -- a "natural law" government.

Further, I disagree with you calling a city-state a "game." I mean, let's get real here. I don't wish to be the least bit impolite, but by you calling my idea a "game", you're asking for something blunt, so I'll give you something blunt: It is far more appropriate to think about anarchy being a game than full-fledged governments with potentially millions of people, with courts, police, etc. And that's because up until this point, anarchy is nothing more than a game. It's just something fantasized about; it's a mind-game only. Whereas government, however you judge its appropriateness, is actually serious business.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: Seth King on April 07, 2011, 11:35:49 PM
You may have a right to come to another's defence, but are you claiming that you have a right to hand the person a bill afterward and demand payment, or else?


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 08, 2011, 12:14:41 AM
You may have a right to come to another's defence, but are you claiming that you have a right to hand the person a bill afterward and demand payment, or else?

Absolutely not. I believe in true consent.



Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 08, 2011, 12:59:57 PM
You may have a right to come to another's defence, but are you claiming that you have a right to hand the person a bill afterward and demand payment, or else?

Absolutely not. I believe in true consent.


Then you don't believe in government. Look, if you allow for a "gov't" that doesn't coerce or tax anyone, then it's just a voluntary association. "What sets the nation state apart is the monopoly on violence." I actually started writing an essay myself on this exact same topic, back when I was a minarchist slipping into the anarchist sphere. I tried to argue that "voluntary governance" was okay, but then I realized that this IS what anarchism is about. hence....
Quote
It's just something fantasized about; it's a mind-game only
Describes "voluntary governance" aka anarchism.

Quote
Whereas government, however you judge its appropriateness, is actually serious business.
Unfortunately, the annals of history indicate that government is an all too serious threat to the existence of human beings. Warning: May cause serious injury, blindness, or death.......

It's a serious threat to us, but we are the pawns in our tax livestock farmers' games. Any efforts by the livestock to justify their masters' owning them is a little silly, that's why I used the term "game" in the beginning.

PS: I am afraid I struck a nerve with my previous post, please don't take offense, none of this is personal, I would not want you to be offended by what I say. I appreciate discussions like this, and if my writing is too rude, please let me know, and I'll tone it down.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 08, 2011, 03:06:24 PM
PS: I am afraid I struck a nerve with my previous post, please don't take offense, none of this is personal, I would not want you to be offended by what I say. I appreciate discussions like this, and if my writing is too rude, please let me know, and I'll tone it down.

Thanks, I appreciate your intent.

I'm afraid there's not much to talk about in your response, because you're just registering apriori disagreement before having read the essay, rather than actually dealing with the issues raised there. Every one of your responses is already handled there.

It is really presumptuous and premature and even insulting to conclude that I'm trying to justify masters etc. Indeed, the evidence in this thread so far would seem to indicate that you are dogmatic and not open to changing your position if it is wrong. I am not saying that is the case, that is just what is indicated by your responses given that you haven't even read the essay. I mean, the proper approach isn't to tell me what I already know and argued against, it's to deal with my particular arguments.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 08, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
I would also add that I am NOT a minarchist. My view is that minarchism is at its core totalitarianism, and that both anarchists and minarchists need to yield some ground in this perennial debate -- if their interest is in defending individual rights. Individual rights theory can support neither alternative. My view is a third, transcending alternative, which has characteristics of both minarchism and anarchism.

Further, I hold that although my view is unique in its emphasis, it is actually not unique relative to what others in history have already said, and that was subsequently ignored. My book explains my position and some of its relation to what others have said, but also, John Locke expressed my position in various places but what he said has been de-emphasized over time. For example (and this is just one):

Quote
Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 08, 2011, 07:16:13 PM
Actually, I have read the paper.

As I mentioned when I was only part-way through it, I knew exactly what it was going to be about. You insisting on being allowed to call voluntary association government. That's the entire paper.

Look, I don't care too much what you call it. But you have to understand that government has always been coercive, and the idea of organizing society without coercion was first adopted by people who are now called anarchists. You seem afraid to describe yourself as an anarchist, and cling to the term government, because you are someone who doesn't to allow "smoldering contempt for government" to cause "alienation between himself and society." You also pointed out that a majority of people disagree with the principles we supposedly share. Therefore you already don't fit so well into "society," so it would be best to just give up on this war over the meaning of a word. It's hopeless, and not really a big deal.

But I suppose this alone won't satisfy you, you'll want me to "prove" that I read your paper, so I'll point out a few problems, but don't have space to list them all.

Quote
If
an association is formed on these premises, say, identifying a continental geographical jurisdiction and
being founded upon a Constitution outlining this purpose, then it is perfectly legitimate, so long as it
does not prevent others in undertaking the same. This fits the underlined definition of government I
gave in the previous section. This is the first point that proves anarchism to be false on the grounds of
Natural Law.
You've defined government to include anarchism, and have failed to prove "anarchsim to be false"

Quote
Any anarchist “defense agency” with the same
measure of strength as a given government would appear to have exactly the same “sovereignty” as
that government.
This one I can't respond to because I don't know what you mean.

Quote
Might doesn't make right, but might will have its way in the world. This is why
political might, which is the aggregation of the might of many individuals, should be forged in a good
comprehension of natural rights, including a proper concept of sovereignty.
I don't see why the first sentence necessitates the second. Seems like an assertion.

Quote
True sovereignty is rooted
in the moral truth that an individual may take any action whatever so long as it doesn't interfere with
the equal right of others to engage in their own actions. Sovereignty over one's property in land resides
in legitimate ownership, not merely pointing and claiming vast swaths of land.
Even going by historic precedent the anarchist rebuttal falls, but it gets worse for the anarchist view
when it comes to applying the prerogatives Natural Law grants us concerning jurisdictions of manmade
law.
Which anarchist rebuttal fell?

Quote
In this context, it is both necessary and legitimate to ban secession,
instead requiring that a dissenting homeowner must sell his property to someone who will follow the
man-made laws that were originally consented to.
When you write "ban secession" it should read, follow a contract.

Quote
If consent is violated by an
“anarchist defense agency,” then they do not call this anarchy anymore, they call it government. This
last fact raises the obvious question about just how much consent must be violated in order for the
formerly anarchic system to magically transform into government. Does it instantaneously switch
upon the first violation of consent?
Sure to the first part. How much must it transform before it's government? I don't care to make efforts at quantifying it. I oppose coercive monopolization of force...always. If the homeowner's association does a little of that, then I oppose it. Will I take up arms to stop it? We make decisions on the margin. Intellectually I'm against it though.

Quote
To some extent, they want what I want, they just do not want
to call it “government”; according to them, government is by definition not formal in the sense of being
based upon rational methodology.
Formality has nothing to do with it.

Quote
Speaking from a purely tactical perspective, why would the anarchist not want to leverage the
populace's own conceptual understanding of what a government really ought to be doing? Rather than
obliterating this highly virtuous expectation that things should be done the right way for the right
reasons by government, why not encourage and strengthen this very healthy spirit of the rule of
rational law, helping them see where government doesn't follow a proper conception of the rule of law
and advocating for positive change?
Indeed, note the harm caused from a population that is apathetic
about what government is doing. Anarchism doesn't counter this apathy, it breeds it.
Oh man. A lot here. From a tactical perspective, we don't want government doing anything. From a tactical perspective, voting and running for office is undermining our own opposition against the use of force, because we are imposing our will on others. Better to not violate our own principles.

It's hardly a "virtuous expectation"....in fact, it's beyond moronic. You expect to hand authority to someone, and then have them look out for your interests? It's the worst type of principal-agent problem...and the reason no "government" has ever worked.

And we do help people see where government doesn't follow a proper conception of the rule of law..and we do advocate for positive change...You're just resorting to the classic punk-rock ancom stereotype of anarchists being whiners with nothing to offer. We've heard this before, it's not new.

Quote
No one thinks that modern governments are perfect or that past governments have even
been reasonable
You are divorced from reality on this one.

Quote
But if government can be good and valid under certain circumstances, then it is imperative to
identify these precisely and to take action to reform government.
Okay, so let's play a game and suppose I agree with your attempts to transform the English language. In that case, anarchists should really call themselves supporters of voluntary "government." Okay...so they by ignoring the criminal state, and creating our own "governments" (read: defense organizations) and talking with people, we are doing just what you have prescribed.....As I've already mentioned, running for office is not an option.

Quote
To be consistent, an anarchist must either reject anarchy or reject the individual right to form
government, and if he chooses the latter, then notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, thus
reveal himself as not in actuality being a true defender of Man's Rights.
At this point, it's pretty clear....the answer is no.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 08, 2011, 09:10:18 PM
Look, I don't care too much what you call it. But you have to understand that government has always been coercive, and the idea of organizing society without coercion was first adopted by people who are now called anarchists.

Argumentum ad populum.

Quote
You seem afraid to describe yourself as an anarchist, and cling to the term government, because you are someone who doesn't to allow "smoldering contempt for government" to cause "alienation between himself and society." You also pointed out that a majority of people disagree with the principles we supposedly share. Therefore you already don't fit so well into "society," so it would be best to just give up on this war over the meaning of a word. It's hopeless, and not really a big deal.

Ad hominem.

Quote
But I suppose this alone won't satisfy you, you'll want me to "prove" that I read your paper, so I'll point out a few problems, but don't have space to list them all.

Baseless assertion regarding the problems you don't list.

Quote
Quote
If
an association is formed on these premises, say, identifying a continental geographical jurisdiction and
being founded upon a Constitution outlining this purpose, then it is perfectly legitimate, so long as it
does not prevent others in undertaking the same. This fits the underlined definition of government I
gave in the previous section. This is the first point that proves anarchism to be false on the grounds of
Natural Law.
You've defined government to include anarchism, and have failed to prove "anarchsim to be false"

That's MY paper and MY definitions. I did not define government to mean anarchism. I defined government to mean something YOU call anarchism. Which is the point being argued. So this remark of yours is question begging.

Quote
Quote
Might doesn't make right, but might will have its way in the world. This is why
political might, which is the aggregation of the might of many individuals, should be forged in a good
comprehension of natural rights, including a proper concept of sovereignty.
I don't see why the first sentence necessitates the second. Seems like an assertion.

"Seems like" is not a refutation of anything I said.

Quote
Quote
True sovereignty is rooted
in the moral truth that an individual may take any action whatever so long as it doesn't interfere with
the equal right of others to engage in their own actions. Sovereignty over one's property in land resides
in legitimate ownership, not merely pointing and claiming vast swaths of land.
Even going by historic precedent the anarchist rebuttal falls, but it gets worse for the anarchist view
when it comes to applying the prerogatives Natural Law grants us concerning jurisdictions of manmade
law.
Which anarchist rebuttal fell?

Questions are not a refutation of anything I said.

Quote
Quote
In this context, it is both necessary and legitimate to ban secession,
instead requiring that a dissenting homeowner must sell his property to someone who will follow the
man-made laws that were originally consented to.
When you write "ban secession" it should read, follow a contract.

Suggestions on wording are not refuting anything I said.

Quote
Quote
If consent is violated by an
“anarchist defense agency,” then they do not call this anarchy anymore, they call it government. This
last fact raises the obvious question about just how much consent must be violated in order for the
formerly anarchic system to magically transform into government. Does it instantaneously switch
upon the first violation of consent?
Sure to the first part. How much must it transform before it's government? I don't care to make efforts at quantifying it. I oppose coercive monopolization of force...always. If the homeowner's association does a little of that, then I oppose it. Will I take up arms to stop it? We make decisions on the margin. Intellectually I'm against it though.

Avoiding answering a question is not refuting what I said.

Quote
Quote
To some extent, they want what I want, they just do not want
to call it “government”; according to them, government is by definition not formal in the sense of being
based upon rational methodology.
Formality has nothing to do with it.

Empty assertions are not refutations.

...

I see no need to go on. You are not being logical. That should trouble you some.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: Seth King on April 08, 2011, 09:35:42 PM
I've read the essay and I've just a few things to say.

You've thought a lot about this topic and I commend you for your work.

You make the point that one going around and claiming to be an atheist is as ridiculous as one going around and claiming to be an atoothfairyist. It's better, instead, to claim what one is for, not against. And in this regard anarchists are not identifying what they are for, only against.

I couldn't agree more. I think it is for this reason that many people prefer to use the term voluntaryist or agorist, instead of anarchist. I prefer the term anarchist because its meaning is widely understood as one who wishes to abolish government. Voluntaryist and agorist are widely unknown terms, althought that is rapidly changing. Perhaps you would like to comment on your opinions of voluntaryists and agorists instead of anarchists?

Next, I would like to tell you how I understand anarchy to be. I will be doing a post on this in greater detail in the future. Anarchy means no rulers. To me, anarchy is truth. This is because the truth is there are no rulers. The rules have always been, currently are, and always will be the EXACT SAME. The rules are defined in natural law, created by god, or nature, and cannot be revoked, only ignored. Man made law is no law at all, under any circumstances. It is merely human action. Man does not create rules, only threats. And sometimes people acts on those threat.

I rarely ever talk about rights. To me, rights do not exist. Libertarians needs to stop talking about rights. Rights have little to no bearing in human action. Life is nothing more than a gigantic power struggle. We all have our ideas of how society should look. I encourage people to be the change they want to see in the world, as Gandhi taught. This is why I don't post articles talking about reforming government, and rarely even abolishing government, but instead to build a society in the image we wish to live.

You often get into battles of semantics about the definition of government, whether you want to or not. If you keep writing about whatever the hell government means to you, you're basically going to be condemning yourself to an eternal battle. Ask a communist and a capitalist what "capitalism" means and you'll get two wildly different answers. Who's right? Who gives a shit! The real question is, what are you going to do about it?

Frankly, I don't stress out too much when the anarcho-syndicalists rag on capitalism. I generally like the vast majority of what they do. If they stop paying taxes and work to bring down the department of defense and BofA, they're okay in my book. Until any of them start initiating violence against me, my family or friends, or steal my property, I'm cool with them.

You mention how the anarchists view the government as being vs. the people. I think you're wrong in that assumption. I started thinking more about anarchy when it dawned on me one day that it is my neighbors oppressing me through the use of the government. This was a big revelation for me because I had been raised in the John Birch Society, thinking that the bad guys were the Rockefellers and Trilateral Commission. It wasn't until I realized that the Rockefellers have absolutely nothing to do with how retarded my neighbors are that I came to view the government as the symptom of a larger problem.

At the end of the day humanity as a whole has been, currently is, and probably always will be trying to find better ways of getting along with one another. I feel confident that as long as I do not initiate aggression against peaceful people, I am living the most moral life I can. I also feel confident that people who do initiate aggression against peaceful people are criminals and should be resisted. Call that whatever you want. I won't stop you.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 08, 2011, 10:20:25 PM
Quote
Quote
Look, I don't care too much what you call it. But you have to understand that government has always been coercive, and the idea of organizing society without coercion was first adopted by people who are now called anarchists.

Argumentum ad populum.

No. Every single thing I said here is true.

Quote
Quote
You seem afraid to describe yourself as an anarchist, and cling to the term government, because you are someone who doesn't to allow "smoldering contempt for government" to cause "alienation between himself and society." You also pointed out that a majority of people disagree with the principles we supposedly share. Therefore you already don't fit so well into "society," so it would be best to just give up on this war over the meaning of a word. It's hopeless, and not really a big deal.

Ad hominem.
No. These are legitimate concerns I raise, and I used your own language. Society “disagrees” with both of us, so your point about anarchism alienating me from society is pointless.

Quote
Quote
But I suppose this alone won't satisfy you, you'll want me to "prove" that I read your paper, so I'll point out a few problems, but don't have space to list them all.

Baseless assertion regarding the problems you don't list.
I don’t owe you anything. I don't owe you a line by line analysis. The assertion isn’t baseless, it’s an induction based on the large number of problems I DID find.

Quote
Quote
Quote
If
an association is formed on these premises, say, identifying a continental geographical jurisdiction and
being founded upon a Constitution outlining this purpose, then it is perfectly legitimate, so long as it
does not prevent others in undertaking the same. This fits the underlined definition of government I
gave in the previous section. This is the first point that proves anarchism to be false on the grounds of
Natural Law.
You've defined government to include anarchism, and have failed to prove "anarchsim to be false"

That's MY paper and MY definitions. I did not define government to mean anarchism. I defined government to mean something YOU call anarchism. Which is the point being argued. So this remark of yours is question begging.
You did nothing other than define government one way, in such a way so that it overlapped with the commonly accepted definition of anarchy, and then tried to “argue” (if that’s even possible, because they are YOUR definitions, and hence correct as you defined them) that the terms were mutually exclusive. If that’s the “point” then we might as well stop.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Might doesn't make right, but might will have its way in the world. This is why
political might, which is the aggregation of the might of many individuals, should be forged in a good
comprehension of natural rights, including a proper concept of sovereignty.
I don't see why the first sentence necessitates the second. Seems like an assertion.

"Seems like" is not a refutation of anything I said.
“Seems like” was my way of being polite. There is nothing to refute. I agree with the first sentence. You said “this is why…” meaning that the first sentence necessitated the second. But you have not made that connection. I can’t refute your normative opinion of what “should” be done.

Quote
Quote
Quote
True sovereignty is rooted
in the moral truth that an individual may take any action whatever so long as it doesn't interfere with
the equal right of others to engage in their own actions. Sovereignty over one's property in land resides
in legitimate ownership, not merely pointing and claiming vast swaths of land.
Even going by historic precedent the anarchist rebuttal falls, but it gets worse for the anarchist view
when it comes to applying the prerogatives Natural Law grants us concerning jurisdictions of manmade
law.
Which anarchist rebuttal fell?

Questions are not a refutation of anything I said.
Did anyone say that questions were refutations? I’m asking a question. Is that allowed? Are we discussing this or not? You don’t seem like you want to.


Quote
Quote
Quote
In this context, it is both necessary and legitimate to ban secession,
instead requiring that a dissenting homeowner must sell his property to someone who will follow the
man-made laws that were originally consented to.
When you write "ban secession" it should read, follow a contract.

Suggestions on wording are not refuting anything I said.
Again, not every comment someone makes is going to refute anything. There’s a thing called discussion. We exchange thoughts. Then we think. Then we exchange more thoughts, and try to understand one another. All of your responses have been extremely defensive, and I’m not even attacking. Relax man…….I’m pointing out that in your situation, there is no criminal organization, so anarchists (in the real world) would not call it government. So there couldn’t be secession. Sovereign individuals make contracts, we don’t tend to call them treaties. They live together as neighbors, so we wouldn’t say that you “annex” one another’s properties.

Quote
Quote
Quote
If consent is violated by an
“anarchist defense agency,” then they do not call this anarchy anymore, they call it government. This
last fact raises the obvious question about just how much consent must be violated in order for the
formerly anarchic system to magically transform into government. Does it instantaneously switch
upon the first violation of consent?
Sure to the first part. How much must it transform before it's government? I don't care to make efforts at quantifying it. I oppose coercive monopolization of force...always. If the homeowner's association does a little of that, then I oppose it. Will I take up arms to stop it? We make decisions on the margin. Intellectually I'm against it though.

Avoiding answering a question is not refuting what I said
Again, no attempt to refute was made. I shared my thoughts, and you ignored them. I don’t think these questions are answerable, partially because I don’t believe in magic ;) ….and I’m a relativist, not an objectivist, sometimes questions don’t have clear cut answers. Other times I’m just not comfortable speaking for all anarchists.


Quote
Quote
Quote
To some extent, they want what I want, they just do not want
to call it “government”; according to them, government is by definition not formal in the sense of being
based upon rational methodology.
Formality has nothing to do with it.
Empty assertions are not refutations.
It’s not an assertion. I’m telling you, as an anarchist, that anarchists do not care how formal an institution is. So, your “according to them” assertion, as you might call it, is not applicable.
Quote
I see no need to go on. You are not being logical. That should trouble you some.
Ok.

How about instead of bickering over the name of what you believe in, how about you just compare stances on issues to real world anarchists. Then you will find that they are the same, and you will understand that in the real world, people who oppose taxation are ANARCHISTS. Anarchists homesteaded this position. There are anarchists who don’t like to use the term anarchist. They choose, “voluntaryist,” or something like that. It’s fine. It doesn’t matter. It’s something they choose to do so as to not turn people off to their ideas. But they understand they are anarchists. I’m sorry that you dislike the word so much. I know anarcho-capitalists who don’t like the word capitalist, so they refuse to be called that. We might agree on everything else. I don’t care if they prefer “market anarchist” or whatever. I see our situation as analogous.
PS: Amen, to Seth’s comment on “rights.” I don’t like thinking in that framework either. It just confuses people.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 12:25:04 AM
Question: You guys are familiar with the Tower of Babel story, right? How is it useful to be not picking terminology using a rational method? I mean, if we just pick our personally preferred words for everything that'd be pretty hard to communicate.

Also, I'm wondering what you call a state of nature where there is no organized system yet. Most people call this state anarchy. So what is the anarchist word for what most people call anarchy?


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: Seth King on April 09, 2011, 02:04:40 AM
So what is the anarchist word for what most people call anarchy?

Chaos.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 11:00:11 AM
So what is the anarchist word for what most people call anarchy?

Chaos.

How is it "chaos" to walk into the deep woods and go camping? If ten others are nearby, and we have no formal rules, how is that necessarily chaos? Sure, it could be chaos if the people were criminals, and that's why people form governments. But it's not necessarily chaos.



Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 11:09:07 AM
I rarely ever talk about rights. To me, rights do not exist. Libertarians needs to stop talking about rights. Rights have little to no bearing in human action.

Rights are, precisely, human action that does not interfere with the equal rights of others.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 09, 2011, 01:15:51 PM
Question: You guys are familiar with the Tower of Babel story, right? How is it useful to be not picking terminology using a rational method? I mean, if we just pick our personally preferred words for everything that'd be pretty hard to communicate.
I just think of it the same way I would the terminology for office equipment. I call something a "desk" because everyone knows what I'm talking about. If that word bugs me, I could call it a namborro, but that just isn't what people use. Language is only useful if other people use it.

Quote
Also, I'm wondering what you call a state of nature where there is no organized system yet.
I think it's fine to describe it as anarchy, or a state of nature.

Quote
Most people call this state anarchy. So what is the anarchist word for what most people call anarchy?
The anarchist word for this "state of nature," that others refer to as "anarchy," would just be "anarchy" or "state of nature."

I disagree with Seth a little on this one. "Chaos" is just a word that people falsely associate with the "state of nature."

But, alas, I'm spending too much time talking about definitions.

Quote
How is it "chaos" to walk into the deep woods and go camping? If ten others are nearby, and we have no formal rules, how is that necessarily chaos? Sure, it could be chaos if the people were criminals, and that's why people form governments. But it's not necessarily chaos.
You've pretty much got it right here. Assuming that by "government" you are referring to that small area of overlap between your own definition of government and our definition of anarchy  ;D .....then you would be correct. It's a bad association that the state has nailed into our heads for a long time. Absence of government is supposed to be chaos....

Quote
Rights are, precisely, human action that does not interfere with the equal rights of others.
How can the precise definition of rights, include the term "rights"  ?

What we're trying to say, is that in the real world, no one "has" to respect your property or life. Since all of these things are "alienable" (contrary to popular belief) in the sense that you can be deprived of them, we don't like to think of them as absolute rights. We just believe that our preferences for guidelines concerning the interactions between human beings will produce outcomes that those same humans would appreciate. We'll be better off if people stop killing and stealing from one another. But there is no law in the universe (unfortunately) that says I am entitled to my life or property.

Stefan Molyneux always says, if someone can come up to me and kill me or steal from me, then my life and property can't be "rights." Rights, according to the common understanding, can't be taken away, but all of these things can.

PS: wissler, given how strong an influence Ayn Rand has had on you, I am very confident that you would find Stefan Molyneux's podcasts and videos to be very enjoyable.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 01:55:35 PM
Quote
Rights are, precisely, human action that does not interfere with the equal rights of others.
How can the precise definition of rights, include the term "rights"  ?

Well if you're going to get picky I'll quote from my book: "To formally define these terms: a right is a human action that does not interfere with the non-interfering actions of another human being; a crime is human action that interferes with the non-interfering actions of another human being."

The definition I gave above is perfectly true though. There is such a thing as an objective act of first interference. This is a case I expand on in my book. The proper definition of "right" is based on a proper understanding of initiating interference.

Quote
What we're trying to say, is that in the real world, no one "has" to respect your property or life. Since all of these things are "alienable" (contrary to popular belief) in the sense that you can be deprived of them, we don't like to think of them as absolute rights. We just believe that our preferences for guidelines concerning the interactions between human beings will produce outcomes that those same humans would appreciate. We'll be better off if people stop killing and stealing from one another. But there is no law in the universe (unfortunately) that says I am entitled to my life or property.

Stefan Molyneux always says, if someone can come up to me and kill me or steal from me, then my life and property can't be "rights." Rights, according to the common understanding, can't be taken away, but all of these things can.

This is all based on an outdated view of rights. Molyneux threw the baby out with the bathwater when instead he should have revisited the foundations. (See the full case For Individual Rights in my book of that name.)

Quote
PS: wissler, given how strong an influence Ayn Rand has had on you, I am very confident that you would find Stefan Molyneux's podcasts and videos to be very enjoyable.

I've seen his stuff, and yes I like him. I just disagree on some very fundamental things. I regard his views to be off the rails in exactly the opposite direction as I view Rand having gone off the rails. They each make opposite errors, but they are still errors. This is extremely common: one person errs in one direction, and the reaction to the error is often an overreaction. This is the case with anarchism, and with Molyneux's rejection of rights.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 09, 2011, 02:09:48 PM
Quote
Well if you're going to get picky I'll quote from my book: "To formally define these terms: a right is a human action that does not interfere with the non-interfering actions of another human being; a crime is human action that interferes with the non-interfering actions of another human being."
You are certainly allowed to do this. It's just my belief that "rights" theory is only useful in talking to very specific people, and most people don't want to hear about it. That's just my experience in trying to convert people to the libertarian camp. I think your definition could be useful at certain times.

Quote
The definition I gave above is perfectly true though. There is such a thing as an objective act of first interference. This is a case I expand on in my book. The proper definition of "right" is based on a proper understanding of initiating interference.
I don't know if the definition is true, so much as it is true that you gave the definition. Sometimes there may be "objective" first acts of interference, but there are plenty of times where you can't objectively determine these things.

Quote
This is all based on an outdated view of rights. Molyneux threw the baby out with the bathwater when instead he should have revisited the foundations.
I'm guessing outdated just means it's a view of rights you disagree with? Despite having no bathwater, Molyneux seems to be able to communicate his ideas very effectively. Rights theory is valuable in so much as it helps in talking to people, and I happen to believe most people don't respond well to it. People often (not always) think of it as goofy, "outdated," or not in touch with reality.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
Quote
Well if you're going to get picky I'll quote from my book: "To formally define these terms: a right is a human action that does not interfere with the non-interfering actions of another human being; a crime is human action that interferes with the non-interfering actions of another human being."
You are certainly allowed to do this. It's just my belief that "rights" theory is only useful in talking to very specific people, and most people don't want to hear about it. That's just my experience in trying to convert people to the libertarian camp. I think your definition could be useful at certain times.

We need to get rid of the rampant subjectivism in the liberty movement or we can't really argue for anything.

This is the same point we're disagreeing about with the terminology regarding anarchism. You guys are fine with whatever terminology, and I'm saying that it's wrong to be fine with that. True is true, better is better, and if people are going to understand something, there are efficient reliable means, and inefficient unreliable means. It's wrong to accept people as they come (so to speak), what you're trying to do is teach them to learn right from wrong, and that means changing how they think, which is precisely NOT to accept them as they are.

You are accepting of me as I am, but I am not accepting of you as you are, but you probably don't accept that, do you? If you do accept that, then you're just saying that it's inevitable that people will disagree about important things, and if that is the case, then essentially you are throwing your hands up in the air and saying that war is inevitable, because that's all war is about in the first place. And if you don't accept my not accepting you as you are, then you're being a hypocrite.

Quote
Quote
The definition I gave above is perfectly true though. There is such a thing as an objective act of first interference. This is a case I expand on in my book. The proper definition of "right" is based on a proper understanding of initiating interference.
I don't know if the definition is true, so much as it is true that you gave the definition. Sometimes there may be "objective" first acts of interference, but there are plenty of times where you can't objectively determine these things.

For example? When in principle can you not know? I'm not talking about being able to know all of the facts of a case, that's irrelevant to the principle at hand. I mean sure, someone can do something criminal and never get caught, or hide evidence, but that doesn't mean that we can't objectively say that if we knew what he did, that what he did was wrong.

Quote
Quote
This is all based on an outdated view of rights. Molyneux threw the baby out with the bathwater when instead he should have revisited the foundations.
I'm guessing outdated just means it's a view of rights you disagree with? Despite having no bathwater, Molyneux seems to be able to communicate his ideas very effectively. Rights theory is valuable in so much as it helps in talking to people, and I happen to believe most people don't respond well to it. People often (not always) think of it as goofy, "outdated," or not in touch with reality.

Well this is just the subjectivism again. By "outdated" I mean that no rights theorist that I know of has answered the kind of objections many have raised, until now. Now that those objections are dealt with, they are no longer relevant, so your criticisms are outdated.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: Seth King on April 09, 2011, 05:37:30 PM
So what is the anarchist word for what most people call anarchy?

Chaos.

How is it "chaos" to walk into the deep woods and go camping? If ten others are nearby, and we have no formal rules, how is that necessarily chaos? Sure, it could be chaos if the people were criminals, and that's why people form governments. But it's not necessarily chaos.



I'm pretty sure I answered your question correctly. I never said it was chaos to go walking into a forest and homestead. You asked me what the anarchist's word was for what most people call anarchy and I told you it was chaos. When there is total pandemonium and rioting in the streets there is chaos, but most people call it anarchy.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 05:45:10 PM
I'm pretty sure I answered your question correctly. I never said it was chaos to go walking into a forest and homestead. You asked me what the anarchist's word was for what most people call anarchy and I told you it was chaos. When there is total pandemonium and rioting in the streets there is chaos, but most people call it anarchy.

You're talking about what the uneducated say anarchy means, but I was asking the reverse question: what is the word for that particular situation where there is no system of any kind. No government, no "defense agencies", just people. Note the very first sense of the word anarchy in this dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy


Shayne



Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: Seth King on April 09, 2011, 06:09:21 PM
The word is anarchy. And yes, we're living in anarchy right now. We always have been and always will be. And don't tell me government exists, because it doesn't. It's a fiction that a lot of people believe in, nothing more.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 06:46:15 PM
The word is anarchy. And yes, we're living in anarchy right now. We always have been and always will be. And don't tell me government exists, because it doesn't. It's a fiction that a lot of people believe in, nothing more.

That all depends on what means by the word "government." Now you guys are all "live and let live" kind of guys, seemingly, except for letting me have my own definition and understanding of the term.

Government is no myth. It is a formalized system of rules applied in a given area. And yes, it really has rules, they are written, and they are applied by real people, who participate in this very real activity. So all these real things are going on, and what we refer to them as is "government." Except anarchists. Anarchists only want to refer to evil things. They don't want to refer to all the things. And also at times it seems they want to say these things cannot be referred to as government, and they reserve that word for a myth.

I think you guys are playing shell games with words. And it's a dangerous game because it wrecks the liberty movement, making us divided and weaker.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 09, 2011, 08:02:39 PM
Quote
We need to get rid of the rampant subjectivism in the liberty movement or we can't really argue for anything.
I was hoping this could be saved for a different thread, and keep it out of this one. I'm prepared to respond, but I'm going to withhold it, and use it to start a different thread later.

Quote
This is the same point we're disagreeing about with the terminology regarding anarchism. You guys are fine with whatever terminology, and I'm saying that it's wrong to be fine with that. True is true, better is better, and if people are going to understand something, there are efficient reliable means, and inefficient unreliable means.
Again, the whole "true is true, better is better" thing is for another thread. Let's try to stay focused.

Quote
It's wrong to accept people as they come (so to speak), what you're trying to do is teach them to learn right from wrong, and that means changing how they think, which is precisely NOT to accept them as they are.
MOST people already have some subconscious understanding of what is right and wrong, we just have to help them see that the state isn't an exception...for those that are openly fine with murder in any context, I won't be trying to convert them.

Quote
You are accepting of me as I am, but I am not accepting of you as you are, but you probably don't accept that, do you?
I accept it as true in the present, but I suspect that will change if you stick around.

Quote
If you do accept that, then you're just saying that it's inevitable that people will disagree about important things, and if that is the case, then essentially you are throwing your hands up in the air and saying that war is inevitable, because that's all war is about in the first place.
War, or rather, conflict, is inevitable. Humans will always use some violence. War in the sense we understand it today, is not about people disagreeing over important things. It's about accumulation of power to the point where the costs of conflict can be spread around, and the benefits concentrated. In a free society, where people pay for the consequences of their actions, wars (or rather, fights) will be infrequent and short-lived, because no one wants to bear those costs. Think about how serious a conflict would be for you to physically go to war with your neighbor...it would take a LOT.

 
Quote
And if you don't accept my not accepting you as you are, then you're being a hypocrite.
?

Quote
For example? When in principle can you not know? I'm not talking about being able to know all of the facts of a case, that's irrelevant to the principle at hand. I mean sure, someone can do something criminal and never get caught, or hide evidence, but that doesn't mean that we can't objectively say that if we knew what he did, that what he did was wrong.
This was touched on at one point in the "voting" thread. But again, I'd rather have you start another objectivism vs subjectivism thread, so that this debate doesn't get buried in the Challenges to Anarchism section.

Quote
Well this is just the subjectivism again. By "outdated" I mean that no rights theorist that I know of has answered the kind of objections many have raised, until now. Now that those objections are dealt with, they are no longer relevant, so your criticisms are outdated.
Subjectivism vs objectivism, that's for another thread. Feel free to start it. The discussion about ideas being outdated is over.

Recap: At this point, most of the arguments have boiled down to objectivism vs subjectivism in the liberty movement, so start a new thread. Otherwise, I still don't see anything that makes you NOT an anarchist. Putting aside labels and definitions, there is nothing (other than subjectivism vs objectivism) that we disagree about. We slightly disagree on methods, but principles all seem the same. Objectivism does not fatally separate someone from the anarchist movement, Stefan being the leader there.

Either state a principle that we disagree on, or we can just call it quits here, and continue other types of discussion elsewhere in the forum.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: Seth King on April 09, 2011, 08:22:53 PM
The word is anarchy. And yes, we're living in anarchy right now. We always have been and always will be. And don't tell me government exists, because it doesn't. It's a fiction that a lot of people believe in, nothing more.

That all depends on what means by the word "government." Now you guys are all "live and let live" kind of guys, seemingly, except for letting me have my own definition and understanding of the term.



I never said you can't call it want you want. But don't expect me to agree with you.

Really, I'm done with this whole argument. Words aren't science. They are subjective.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 10:21:21 PM
Words aren't science. They are subjective.

Speak for yourself. We all use words differently. Some more intelligently and scientifically than others. I don't think those using more primitive methods should be casting stones at those who use more sophisticated ones.

I mean, your whole claim here just turns everything you say into primitive mumbo jumbo. No one can really know what you really mean, because it's all personal to you anyway. That's fine, because at least it's a terminal point in the debate. You admit that you make no sense, nor do you want to.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 09, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
Either state a principle that we disagree on, or we can just call it quits here, and continue other types of discussion elsewhere in the forum.

You seem to have missed the last half of my essay, which is on how anarchism ought to be defined and why.

Everything I've been saying is totally on point for this thread, and I won't be creating a different one.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 09, 2011, 11:15:02 PM
Again, quit worrying about classification. If you cannot name a normative principle that separates you from anarchists, then this thread is over. Objectivism vs Subjectivism would be a new topic, and is not a challenge to anarchism.

If your next post on this thread does not name a specific principle, and give an example of some way by which your ideal world differs from that of an anarchist's, then I will not need to respond. You are the one trying to write your way out of an identity crisis, desperately avoiding the mental realization that you are an anarchist. I've never seen someone get so close, and then keep resisting. It's interesting though.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 10, 2011, 12:33:08 AM
Again, quit worrying about classification. If you cannot name a normative principle that separates you from anarchists, then this thread is over. Objectivism vs Subjectivism would be a new topic, and is not a challenge to anarchism.

First of all, under my system, you are subject to a jurisdiction of Natural Law, enforced by others if they so choose, subject to certain rules (similar to probable cause before coming into someone's home). Some anarchists object, some don't. Don't ask me whether you count it one way or the other.

Second of all, your totalitarian rule that I not discuss the reasons in the second half of my essay are totally subjective and arbitrary. You of all people should allow a discussion of whatever wherever. You're totally undisciplined on terminology on stuff that matters, but when it comes to this forum you seem to be a petty and misguided dictator.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 10, 2011, 11:24:39 AM
Quote
First of all, under my system, you are subject to a jurisdiction of Natural Law, enforced by others if they so choose, subject to certain rules (similar to probable cause before coming into someone's home). Some anarchists object, some don't. Don't ask me whether you count it one way or the other.
Yes, rules will spontaneously arise, and people will enforce them. Governance without government. No objections. I simply prefer not to call it a system, since it can arise without coercion. It's just nature....As we can see, you are an anarchist. You might prefer some synonym that sounds less provocative, but you fit under the umbrella of people who support the idea of statelessness...the end of taxation.

Quote
Second of all, your totalitarian rule that I not discuss the reasons in the second half of my essay are totally subjective and arbitrary. You of all people should allow a discussion of whatever wherever. You're totally undisciplined on terminology on stuff that matters, but when it comes to this forum you seem to be a petty and misguided dictator.
Nothing totalitarian about it. You are welcome to make posts regarding that subject here, and no one will erase them. Anyone is welcome to respond to them without fear of having posts erased. It's just a preference of mine to keep valuable discussions in places where people will be more likely to find them later on, so I personally will not have that discussion here, where it will be buried in a thread with a title having nothing to do with it.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 10, 2011, 12:14:47 PM
Quote
First of all, under my system, you are subject to a jurisdiction of Natural Law, enforced by others if they so choose, subject to certain rules (similar to probable cause before coming into someone's home). Some anarchists object, some don't. Don't ask me whether you count it one way or the other.
Yes, rules will spontaneously arise, and people will enforce them. Governance without government. No objections. I simply prefer not to call it a system, since it can arise without coercion. It's just nature....As we can see, you are an anarchist. You might prefer some synonym that sounds less provocative, but you fit under the umbrella of people who support the idea of statelessness...the end of taxation.

I'm not sure we're communicating. When I say "Natural Law" jurisdiction, I am referring to the possibility of a government which enforces Natural Law. This includes the possibility of Americans consensually supporting the Federal Government in that role. If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.

Why? To name one reason, I don't want the Chinese instituting Communism here. I believe in a centralized military strong enough to keep out foreign aggressors. Now in the ideal world and in the long-run, there are none. Humanity learns how to behave itself. And this military would wither away to the National Guard. But for now that is not the case.

Since the Federal Government would be the most powerful of consensually supported governments, any others that might arise would be irrelevant, and given a firm commitment by the Federal Government to protect rights, undesired. I am not saying they shouldn't have a right to arise (which is similar to the competing government scenario of anarcho-capitalism outside of city-state zones). I'm saying it'd just be a theoretical possibility that would not actually manifest (except in the same kind of way that State governments already manifest a jurisdiction that should be based on Natural Law -- more locally).


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 10, 2011, 12:17:13 PM
Given my last post, which says that the Federal Government says around, but that its functions are scaled back to morally-defensible functions, if that existed as I say it would have both a historical and logical connection to our current Federal Government, and I think it is patently absurd to call this "anarchy."


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 10, 2011, 07:22:34 PM
Quote
This includes the possibility of Americans consensually supporting the Federal Government in that role.
Even the early republic doesn't satisfy these unrealistic "possibilities."

Quote
If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.
That same majority would still believe in taxing the dissenters.

Quote
I don't want the Chinese instituting Communism here.
lol...They are more free market than us. And you've spent too much time around republican fear mongers. People with nukes don't get invaded. Nor could rich free societies armed to the teeth.

Quote
And this military would wither away to the National Guard. But for now that is not the case.
Those with extreme power don't let it slowly dissipate. They go down fighting.

Quote
I'm saying it'd just be a theoretical possibility that would not actually manifest
I can speak for all anarchists when I say that we would establish or join free societies immediately if we could do so without getting butchered by our masters.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 10, 2011, 08:17:57 PM
Quote
I'm saying it'd just be a theoretical possibility that would not actually manifest
I can speak for all anarchists when I say that we would establish or join free societies immediately if we could do so without getting butchered by our masters.

No you wouldn't. You just think you would because of what is going on now. You're so blinded by all the rotten things that you aren't thinking straight.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 10, 2011, 08:38:07 PM
Quote
If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.
Your reforms would never satisfy my desire to be free

Quote
I'm saying it'd just be a theoretical possibility that would not actually manifest
I can speak for all anarchists when I say that we would establish or join free societies immediately if we could do so without getting butchered by our masters.

No you wouldn't. You just think you would because of what is going on now. You're so blinded by all the rotten things that you aren't thinking straight.

I repeat, I would free myself. I don't need anyone "correcting" my preferences.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 10, 2011, 11:10:37 PM
Quote
If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.

Your reforms would never satisfy my desire to be free

Better buy a spaceship, you're gonna need it.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on April 11, 2011, 09:11:01 AM
Quote
If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.

Your reforms would never satisfy my desire to be free

Better buy a spaceship, you're gonna need it.
I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 11, 2011, 10:23:05 AM
I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: Seth King on April 11, 2011, 05:25:35 PM
I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.

You're absolutely correct about that. This is why I've written past articles on how we are already living in a completely free-market. This is the result. If you don't like it you have two choices, go along with it anyway, or disobey. This is why I am telling you that anarchy is the way of the world all of the time. There is nothing you or I or anybody can do to create anarchy. It's already here. Anarchy is the way of the world. It is truth. My goal is to better understand the way of the world as well as help others to better understand the way of the world. The better we understand the laws of nature, the better off we will be. The more we ignore the laws of nature, the worse off we will be.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 11, 2011, 09:40:17 PM
I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.

You're absolutely correct about that. This is why I've written past articles on how we are already living in a completely free-market. This is the result. If you don't like it you have two choices, go along with it anyway, or disobey. This is why I am telling you that anarchy is the way of the world all of the time. There is nothing you or I or anybody can do to create anarchy. It's already here. Anarchy is the way of the world. It is truth. My goal is to better understand the way of the world as well as help others to better understand the way of the world. The better we understand the laws of nature, the better off we will be. The more we ignore the laws of nature, the worse off we will be.

Well it's good we have some common ground in there. I agree in essential terms with this, other than your use of the word "anarchy" and "free market" to describe the underlying facts.

You would probably like my book better than the essay, since it is primarily focussed on the underlying values that people should embrace (which I term as "individual rights" -- I know you disagree with "rights", but you're disagreeing with an obsolete conception so in some sense I don't disagree with your disagreement). This Against Anarchism essay is just a foray into a much narrower issue.


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: Seth King on April 11, 2011, 09:44:58 PM
I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.

You're absolutely correct about that. This is why I've written past articles on how we are already living in a completely free-market. This is the result. If you don't like it you have two choices, go along with it anyway, or disobey. This is why I am telling you that anarchy is the way of the world all of the time. There is nothing you or I or anybody can do to create anarchy. It's already here. Anarchy is the way of the world. It is truth. My goal is to better understand the way of the world as well as help others to better understand the way of the world. The better we understand the laws of nature, the better off we will be. The more we ignore the laws of nature, the worse off we will be.

Well it's good we have some common ground in there. I agree in essential terms with this, other than your use of the word "anarchy" and "free market" to describe the underlying facts.

You would probably like my book better than the essay, since it is primarily focussed on the underlying values that people should embrace (which I term as "individual rights" -- I know you disagree with "rights", but you're disagreeing with an obsolete conception so in some sense I don't disagree with your disagreement). This Against Anarchism essay is just a foray into a much narrower issue.

Have you forgotten that I read your entire book?


Title: Re: Against Anarchism essay
Post by: wissler on April 11, 2011, 09:47:49 PM
Have you forgotten that I read your entire book?

Whoops, no for some reason I thought I was replying to JustSayNoToStatism, sorry. I definitely didn't forget :)