Daily Anarchist Forum
December 06, 2022, 09:18:50 AM *
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  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1  General Category / General Discussion / Snowden's girlfriend is with him in Moscow, new film reveals on: October 21, 2014, 06:08:52 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/11/edward-snowden-girlfriend-moscow-documentary-poitras

The muricuh-loving bastards have tried to make his life hell, and he still has his woman at his side.  This is absolutely beautiful.   Grin
2  General Category / General Discussion / Re: My new site: anarcho-capitalism frequently asked questions and their answers on: July 24, 2014, 03:00:25 AM
Thank you for your advice.  Smiley  I will ponder it.  

P.S.  You're correct that I have tailored the site for minarchists.  I think that we ancaps have a huge reservoir consisting of "small government" people, and that in order to become ubiquitous, we need to tap this reservoir before we try to convert the government-loving masses.  Thoughts?
3  General Category / General Discussion / Re: I'm in Love on: July 15, 2014, 08:24:32 PM
I am her Facebook friend. 
4  General Category / General Discussion / Re: competing corporations as part of the state on: July 15, 2014, 07:47:58 PM
What large corporations are you aware of that are relatively "clean?"
5  General Category / General Discussion / Re: nuanced ancap view of the immigration issue on: July 15, 2014, 07:47:18 PM
Yes conservatives are fools, and yes the state needs to go away.  

With that said, I still have every right to be pissed at anyone who initiates violence against me by voting for politicians who will send thugs door-to-door to collect guns.  
6  General Category / General Discussion / nuanced ancap view of the immigration issue on: July 15, 2014, 07:29:55 PM
I very much want all aspects of statism to simply go away.  Logically, that means that, yes, I am glad that borders are being patrolled less.  However, serious issues crop up when the various aspects of statism do not disappear in unison.

The current wave of central American immigrants into the US are largely desperate for handouts, and also tend to favor anti-gun rulers.  A practical, real-world consequence of borders going away WITHOUT voting, taxes, and the welfare state going away, is that inhabitants of the US who pay taxes (in ways that they have little control over) and own guns, get fucked over.  In an ancap world, people moving around would not cause this suffering, but in the world we know, there has been, and will be, suffering from this. 

With this in mind, the limited government people do kinda, sorta have a point, as much as I hate saying that, and that point is, that the immigrants will use the state to harm us liberty-loving folk.  It goes without saying that I, as an ancap, am NOT saying that the government needs to go back to patrolling the southern border like it once did.  Rather, I am saying that the government needs to go away, PERIOD, so that these newcomers cannot indirectly send BATFE goons to murder us in the wee hours of the morning. 

Thoughts?
7  General Category / General Discussion / Re: competing corporations as part of the state on: July 15, 2014, 07:22:27 PM
I have never been convinced they are part of the state.  Many certainly get involved in cronyism and crony capitalism.  There do seem to be some significant companies that have little to do with the government though. 

So in your view, the complicity of large corporations with the government very much needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis?
8  General Category / General Discussion / Re: competing corporations as part of the state on: July 15, 2014, 02:28:44 PM
I mean there is evidence that many large corporations go above and beyond merely receiving government privileges and paying taxes in return, and instead actively assist the government in profound ways, like Monsanto.

Monsanto and other large corporations that screw the population over are part of the state in a vastly different way than some tiny, mom and pop LLC is (which merely gets a few privileges and pays taxes).

So Coke and Pepsi, while competitors, presumably both help the government in major ways, beyond merely paying taxes.  Perhaps a good analogy is branches of the military competing with each other for recruits and prestige, yet all being part of the same power structure. 
9  General Category / General Discussion / competing corporations as part of the state on: July 15, 2014, 01:34:42 PM
What is the best way to explain to others why large corporations are part of the state, even though some of said corporations directly compete with each other, such as Coke and Pepsi?
10  General Category / General Discussion / Re: My new site: anarcho-capitalism frequently asked questions and their answers on: June 06, 2014, 10:38:58 PM
Also feel free to like the associated Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/ancapfaq.
11  General Category / General Discussion / My new site: anarcho-capitalism frequently asked questions and their answers on: June 05, 2014, 10:22:29 PM
www.ancapfaq.com

Please refer any statists you know to my site, especially ones who are hanging onto statism by a thread (say they've been persuaded that statism is immoral, but they think that anarcho-capitalism is impractical).  Readers are free to submit any question, which I will add and answer.
12  General Category / General Discussion / Re: statelessess vs anarchy on: March 27, 2014, 12:58:12 PM
The term "anarchy" means "without rulers."  On the other hand, the state is defined as "a legal person, recognized by international law, with the following attributes: (a) a defined territory, (b) a permanent population, (c) an effective government, and (d) independence, or the right "to enter into relations with other states." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29 ] It would seem, therefore, that "state" merely refers to a ruling class having a certain level of complexity. 

Clearly, the Celtic and Germanic tribes of Europe, for example, were stateless, in that they neither had defined territories (they were nomadic or semi-nomadic), nor permanent populations, nor effective governments (they merely had tribal chieftains).  However, it is also clearly not the case that these people were "without rulers" no matter how informal and impotent these rulers may have been.  It would seem that a group of people can be stateless (i.e., lacking a ruling class of the requisite level of complexity to count as a "state") yet have rulers nonetheless.

Therefore, is it accurate to say that statelessness does not necessarily entail anarchy?

The tribes you referred to still remained in definable areas.  It would be like saying you live in Germany, or France, rather than you live in Berlin or Paris.  The other tribes roaming area defined their edges.  If you want to be super specific about exactly what little point was which turf, remember that people didn't have ways to determine these things other than rivers with a great deal of accuracy. 

As far as effectiveness of governments, they were able to be recognized and negotiate with the large central government of Rome.  Rome simply offered bad terms, and ended up having to fight most of the places they took over. 

Granted, a case could be made that these were not stateless peoples.  They had diplomatic relations with the state power of Rome, as you pointed out, and they were advanced enough to have agriculture (which is said to be one of the main things that led to the invention of the state), metal working, etc.

With this in mind, what is the minimum level of societal complexity that a state can exist in?  Is it accurate to say that the head man of a band of a few dozen paleolithic hunter-gatherers is not a state (especially in light of the consensus that the state did not arise until after the invention of agriculture)?
13  General Category / General Discussion / Re: statelessess vs anarchy on: March 27, 2014, 12:57:44 PM
Yes.

In my opinion at least.

It's interesting, I'd had this exact question, whether folks here differentiate "stateless" from "anarchic", tumbling around in my mind for a while recently, but hadn't posted about it. I'd been thinking about Rothbard's two examples of "libertarian" societies in For a New Liberty, Ireland and the Igbo. He called them libertarian, but both societies had slavery. It seems significant that one of the "founders" of modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism would think a society that had slaves was the best example currently available of something close to his ideal. (Not that he was ok with slavery, but I just found it interesting.)

In my own mind I use "anarchy" to imply a more thorough lack of authoritarian institutions in a society. I'm not sure where exactly I draw the line, because I'd still consider a society anarchic if people generally had relations of non-dominance between themselves, but some intruder came in and started using force to enslave people. Until the intruder grew powerful enough to reach a certain level of immunity against retaliation, I wouldn't consider them an essential or definitory part of that society, they'd just be a criminal in an anarchist society instead of changing the society to a different kind of society. But at some point, once the social relations people lived under changed more generally or thoroughly, I'd say the anarchic nature of their society had been taken away.

But the State is just one form of coercive hierarchy. Anarchy would entail statelessness, but to me statelessness does not necesarilly entail anarchy.

Just me. Others may think differently.

I haven't decided how I think of "voluntary hierarchy" like beuracratically organized businesses. On the one hand, I think of it kind of like the words "sparring" and "assault", and "sex" and "rape". If something is consentual, we no longer call it rape or assault, we call it sex or sparring, even if similar things occur physically. (BSDM could look like rape but not be.) So, if someone consents to live under hierarchy, then is it still hierarchy? Are their rulers still rulers? Or should we call it something else? What if they have the ability to escape the relationship at any time as well?

On the other hand, I think I'd prefer self-employment to working for such a business, and it seems like if one thinks of anarchism as a general set of theories about human social organization, then in practice anarchist ideas would change the structure of firms as well as "political" institutions, even though having beuracratic firms in and of itself wouldn't necesarilly violate the NAP.

Like I said, I'm still thinking about all this stuff myself, haven't formed a clear opinion yet.

I agree with your statements.  Regarding your questions, I don't think that consensual activity creates a hierarchy or violates the NAP.
14  General Category / General Discussion / statelessess vs anarchy on: March 27, 2014, 04:17:15 AM
The term "anarchy" means "without rulers."  On the other hand, the state is defined as "a legal person, recognized by international law, with the following attributes: (a) a defined territory, (b) a permanent population, (c) an effective government, and (d) independence, or the right "to enter into relations with other states." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29 ] It would seem, therefore, that "state" merely refers to a ruling class having a certain level of complexity.  

Clearly, the Celtic and Germanic tribes of Europe, for example, were stateless, in that they neither had defined territories (they were nomadic or semi-nomadic), nor permanent populations, nor effective governments (they merely had tribal chieftains).  However, it is also clearly not the case that these people were "without rulers" no matter how informal and impotent these rulers may have been.  It would seem that a group of people can be stateless (i.e., lacking a ruling class of the requisite level of complexity to count as a "state") yet have rulers nonetheless.

Therefore, is it accurate to say that statelessness does not necessarily entail anarchy?
15  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Rothbard and air pollution on: January 15, 2014, 12:59:04 AM
One would need to (1) be able to measure the pollution, and (2) demonstrate that it came from you.  I don't think that these two things could be done for a bonfire.

Really?

Obviously it's going to depend on the situation, but if it's your next door neighbor, and huge plumes of smoke are blowing onto your property, then whipping out your iPhone/camera to satisfy (2) is quite easy. Or if you aren't there to witness, if you come home and all your lawn furniture is blackened with soot, or the white carpet in your house (if you left the glass part of your window open to allow air-flow) is all dirty, then asking around to your neighbors should provide enough witnesses to identify the source.

As to measuring the pollution, that's not always necessary (or really ever, that I can think of). Demonstrating damage is. So the cost of cleaning things that have been dirtied, or the cost of going to the doctor for health problems caused by smoke inhalation; these things can be used in your torte case to demand restitution and require "injunction" against further bonfires.

The bonfire is the easiest case actually. It's the more subtle cases like toxic chemicals released into air/water that are harder to detect, and may only have damaging effects over a long-term exposure so damage is more difficult to prove. Maybe not impossible, but certainly not as easy as the bonfire example.

Your scenario satisfies both criteria. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
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!