Daily Anarchist Forum
November 20, 2019, 08:08:48 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  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Proof of Anarchy  (Read 12578 times)
unibonger
Newbie
*
Posts: 2



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2010, 07:55:09 AM »

Anarcho-capitalists rarely/never present a "picture" of what society would look like under a voluntary system, or even answer the simple questions such as,"who designates real property boundaries in an anarchical environment?"  It's an important concept and vital to laissez-faire free market capitalism and liberty.

And statists always tell us how much better they will make society with just one more war on poverty/drugs/terror/etc. ad nauseum.  Seems like all those problems just keep getting worse and worse with every gov't intervention. 

Seriously though, we don't tell you that because we don't have any desire to control you.  You are supposed to go out and either join or create the type of society that YOU want to live in.  No top down, hierarchical, one size fits all solutions.  If you don't like x, you can move to an x free society.  Like y, you can move to a y tolerant town.  Micro social experiments everywhere and no central goons forcing us to follow their rules.  But to get an idea of how this could work, I'd suggest you start with Stefan Molyneux's "Everyday Anarchy" and "Practical Anarchy" books.  Both are available free online in pdf, audio and video form at  http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

Peace
Logged

Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion.

- William N. Grigg
Travlyr
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2010, 01:32:45 PM »

You did not bother to read what I wrote, did you unibonger?

I am asking a simple question. Property rights are invaluable to liberty. A state clearly defines property ownership.
Who in a voluntary society defines property boundaries? Anyone?
Logged
unibonger
Newbie
*
Posts: 2



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2010, 06:28:50 AM »

You did not bother to read what I wrote, did you unibonger?

I am asking a simple question. Property rights are invaluable to liberty. A state clearly defines property ownership.
Who in a voluntary society defines property boundaries? Anyone?

Ya I did read it and only answered the first part about what "a "picture" of what society would look like under a voluntary system".  The rest of the answer to your question is in the links I provided.  Once you've taken the time to read/listen/watch those two books, you should have some answers.  However, unfortunately for you, there is no simple answer as each community will devise their own ways to deal with that [and every other] issue.

Peace  
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 06:30:42 AM by unibonger » Logged

Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion.

- William N. Grigg
Intuition
Newbie
*
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2010, 07:07:00 PM »

You did not bother to read what I wrote, did you unibonger?

I am asking a simple question. Property rights are invaluable to liberty. A state clearly defines property ownership.
Who in a voluntary society defines property boundaries? Anyone?

First, I would argue that the State does anything but define property boundaries clearly. Look at the hundreds of years of caselaw, statutes, regulations, etc. that all, in some way, determine the boundaries of your property. Even if you hire a state-sponsored lawyer you will be faced with more questions than answers. And I'm speaking as a licensed lawyer. From the outside, looking at it as a layman, I can completely understand the sense that property boundaries are clearly defined and predictable. But, in reality, when you get into any dispute many many issues pop up that are easy to ignore until you're in that dispute.

Even in today's statist world, we can see innumerable issues popping up with foreclosuregate that deal with title to real property. The rules may seem clear to outsiders but the state does nothing to enforce said rules against insiders, so is the statist system really and truly functional?

I don't have a simple answer for how to solve every dispute over property rights just like no anarchist can honestly give you a simple answer for ANY problem posed by a complex civilized society. Here's the thing: imagine a world where the State controlled even more aspects of society than it does today. Your complaint against free market anarchism is actually akin to something that anti-abolitionists used to criticize abolitionists: "But where will all these slaves find jobs without us deciding where they work?!?" Yes, that's a severe example, but imagine if we lived in a society where government decided who would date or who would marry. In that society, if one posited the option of freedom to create relationships, people would immediately argue, "But how will we find our mate? How will anyone ever go about finding the person they're supposed to marry?" Or if government decided your job/trade etc. If someone argued that people deserve the right to pick their own job, people would immediately respond: "But HOW are people going to find their job?"

The beauty of anarchism is that it is entirely unpredictable on a large scale. Order is created spontaneously, though, through large groups acting in their own individual interests. Look at the solutions that were promulgated in the not so "Wild" West before there was any government sovereignty. Look at how medieval Iceland created a private system for law and law enforcement before being overrun by the Norwegians several hundred years later. Look at the polycentric legal system of Somalia since its government fell.

There are examples out there of how such things could potentially work. And many more theoretical possibilities have been posed by philosophers.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether you have the faith in humanity to reject the notion that society can ONLY function through a monopoly on aggression. I personally believe that human society is based fundamentally on an undeniable sense of compassion that most folks feel for their fellow human beings. Said compassion has been scientifically proven. Yes, there are outliers who will have to be dealt with but the vast majority of folks truly want to find a way to work together and minimize conflict.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2010, 07:30:03 PM »

Excellent response Intuition!
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Intuition
Newbie
*
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2010, 08:14:05 PM »

Excellent response Intuition!

 Smiley Thanks Seth. I've honed my argumentation skills against folks who were staunch statists and even big government types, which makes it second nature to respond to the skepticism of minarchists and small government folks in general.
Logged
Travlyr
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2010, 02:33:22 PM »


I am asking a simple question. Property rights are invaluable to liberty. A state clearly defines property ownership.
Who in a voluntary society defines property boundaries? Anyone?
First, I would argue that the State does anything but define property boundaries clearly. Look at the hundreds of years of caselaw, statutes, regulations, etc. that all, in some way, determine the boundaries of your property. Even if you hire a state-sponsored lawyer you will be faced with more questions than answers. And I'm speaking as a licensed lawyer. From the outside, looking at it as a layman, I can completely understand the sense that property boundaries are clearly defined and predictable. But, in reality, when you get into any dispute many many issues pop up that are easy to ignore until you're in that dispute.
Either, I did not make myself clear, or you are being disingenuous. The state effectively draws property boundaries using "metes & bounds" and "lot & block" survey methods. Then counties make those property boundaries available as public records in deeds recorded in files at the county seats. As a previous property owner of several properties in more than one state, I know for a fact that finding property boundaries are as simple as locating the property boundary pins, and/or measuring, thus verifying that they correctly represented in the deed. In the event of a dispute, I would never use a lawyer to help me find property boundaries. I use surveyors. If it is not accurate, I don't buy the property.

The state very effectively and efficiently clearly defines property boundaries. While nothing is perfect in this world, to claim that the property boundaries are not drawn clearly in America is disingenuous.

Quote
Even in today's statist world, we can see innumerable issues popping up with foreclosuregate that deal with title to real property. The rules may seem clear to outsiders but the state does nothing to enforce said rules against insiders, so is the statist system really and truly functional?
Absolutely functional. County courts are in the process of invalidating fraudulent "mortgages" and "deeds of trust" because lenders failed to follow the law. A great many people may end up owning their properties without paying the lender because some courts rule by law.

Quote
I don't have a simple answer for how to solve every dispute over property rights just like no anarchist can honestly give you a simple answer for ANY problem posed by a complex civilized society.
You cannot answer because the Voluntaryists have no plan. Voluntaryists are idealists not realists.

Quote
Here's the thing: imagine a world where the State controlled even more aspects of society than it does today.
I don't argue for totalitarianism. I argue for liberty. The state does indeed have legitimate functions to preserve liberty.
Quote
Your complaint against free market anarchism is actually akin to something that anti-abolitionists used to criticize abolitionists: "But where will all these slaves find jobs without us deciding where they work?!?" Yes, that's a severe example, but imagine if we lived in a society where government decided who would date or who would marry. In that society, if one posited the option of freedom to create relationships, people would immediately argue, "But how will we find our mate? How will anyone ever go about finding the person they're supposed to marry?" Or if government decided your job/trade etc. If someone argued that people deserve the right to pick their own job, people would immediately respond: "But HOW are people going to find their job?"
Poor analogy... I refer you to the preamble... the intent of a republic.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Quote
The beauty of anarchism is that it is entirely unpredictable on a large scale. Order is created spontaneously, though, through large groups acting in their own individual interests. Look at the solutions that were promulgated in the not so "Wild" West before there was any government sovereignty. Look at how medieval Iceland created a private system for law and law enforcement before being overrun by the Norwegians several hundred years later. Look at the polycentric legal system of Somalia since its government fell.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like predictability. Somalia is not a society I embrace. I like order. Chaos sucks. Each of us having an opportunity to be heard before our peers is justice in an orderly society.

One of my great-uncles "wild west" (California gold rush) watched a man hang in 1850 for a crime he did not commit. A couple of days later, when they found the true criminal, they were so mortified by what they had done that the real thief was spared. Voluntary societies fail in justice, too.

Quote
There are examples out there of how such things could potentially work. And many more theoretical possibilities have been posed by philosophers.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether you have the faith in humanity to reject the notion that society can ONLY function through a monopoly on aggression. I personally believe that human society is based fundamentally on an undeniable sense of compassion that most folks feel for their fellow human beings. Said compassion has been scientifically proven. Yes, there are outliers who will have to be dealt with but the vast majority of folks truly want to find a way to work together and minimize conflict.
And I don't have faith that people will somehow automatically voluntarily respect each other and their property anytime soon.  If you do, then leave the keys to your car in the ignition. Or leave your bicycle unlocked.

Voluntaryists are likely the most honorable individuals on Earth, but they are too quick to give up their privacy for my tastes. And they are also the most naive of the human behavior of others.

I, for one, want a state for order and justice.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2010, 02:47:00 PM »

I understand wanting order and justice. I do too. But as far as I'm concerned the statists are the ones who need to defend their system, not the voluntaryists.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Travlyr
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2010, 05:30:28 PM »

Seth - That is exactly why I am defending the state.

I've studied the Constitution, I've studied history, and I've studied liberty. The United States of America has been a safe haven for many folks who escaped annihilation and genocide for opportunity and prosperity. No, it's not perfect, but the Constitution can be amended. No nation prior to the United States endured long enough for common people to achieve greatness.  The United States has been a beacon of liberty for the world.

Voluntaryism is not more liberty but less. I do not intend to give-up my freedoms for an inferior social design. If you wish to give-up your privacy voluntarily, then fine. I do not wish to do that. When the central banking cabal is done raping the world, limited government will prevail and once again be embraced by liberty lovers around the world.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2010, 08:03:30 PM »

I don't understand why you keep saying voluntaryists wish to lose their privacy. I'm all about privacy. I'm sure I've asked this already, but have you read Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed? If you read that and still think limited government is a possibility then more power to you. If not, you owe it to yourself to at least give it a shot.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Intuition
Newbie
*
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2010, 12:14:05 AM »

Either, I did not make myself clear, or you are being disingenuous. The state effectively draws property boundaries using "metes & bounds" and "lot & block" survey methods. Then counties make those property boundaries available as public records in deeds recorded in files at the county seats. As a previous property owner of several properties in more than one state, I know for a fact that finding property boundaries are as simple as locating the property boundary pins, and/or measuring, thus verifying that they correctly represented in the deed. In the event of a dispute, I would never use a lawyer to help me find property boundaries. I use surveyors. If it is not accurate, I don't buy the property.

The state very effectively and efficiently clearly defines property boundaries. While nothing is perfect in this world, to claim that the property boundaries are not drawn clearly in America is disingenuous.

My sincere apologies--I misunderstood what you were saying. I certainly wasn't intentionally trying to be disingenuous. In the narrow case of defining clear boundaries to real property, I see what you're saying. However, given the generally prevailing libertarian theory of real property rights, I don't think this issue raises any damning criticism of the voluntaryist ideology. Real property boundaries posed issues precisely because they were arbitrarily drawn by the State, going all the way back to the original royal land grants in the colonies. I think physical boundaries of real property ownership are more clearly (and ethically) defined through the homestead principle. While not perfect the concept is consistent with the non-aggression principle.

Quote
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like predictability. Somalia is not a society I embrace. I like order. Chaos sucks. Each of us having an opportunity to be heard before our peers is justice in an orderly society.

One of my great-uncles "wild west" (California gold rush) watched a man hang in 1850 for a crime he did not commit. A couple of days later, when they found the true criminal, they were so mortified by what they had done that the real thief was spared. Voluntary societies fail in justice, too.

I don't really see how any of this is a criticism of voluntaryism. In the first place, State-monopolized justice and order is certainly not perfect in any practical sense. And State-monopolized justice and order, which is necessarily based upon the initiation of force, is fundamentally flawed in a moral sense. That moral flaw cannot be overcome by any perceived utility offered by any potential (or real) enhanced order or "justice".

Quote
And I don't have faith that people will somehow automatically voluntarily respect each other and their property anytime soon.  If you do, then leave the keys to your car in the ignition. Or leave your bicycle unlocked.

Voluntaryists are likely the most honorable individuals on Earth, but they are too quick to give up their privacy for my tastes. And they are also the most naive of the human behavior of others.

I, for one, want a state for order and justice.

Oh, I know there will always be people who refuse to respect others' property. That's why basically all voluntaryists posit ways to create and enforce legal systems. The important aspect we care about is that an aggressive monopoly on the provision of any good or service is immoral from the start.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2010, 05:29:43 PM »

Quote
Anarchy:
    1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless,"

Which means that everyone is their own leader, in other words, everyone interprets the rules for themselves. Which means misunderstandings and chaos.
ÖOkay, so apply this to our economy. If we didnít have a central director, it would be chaotic? Come one, you know this isnít true. You canít make this statement as a general rule if there are examples abound of where itís not true, and you know it. That is an emotional, kneejerk reaction to hearing this idea that you have yet to accept.
Quote
Property rights - All wealth comes from the earth (land, water, air). Mine it, grow it, or sew it. Who in an anarchical society determines property boundaries?
ÖIntuition has already debunked this one better than I ever could. What makes the statesí rulings correct or good? The state is a deity, a false god that you and others worship. You want it to be able to do magical things that it simply cannot do. You are right, it would be nice if it could, but it canít. Weíre the realists. You are the idealist.
Quote
All taxation is theft - While technically accurate
Öjust stop right here.
Quote
notion is a very selfish ideology. Self-ownership is inherent, but self-dependence is impossible.
Ö.someone sounds like a social democrat
Quote
Some infants, some adolescents, some adults, and some elderly need help.
Öthis hardly justifies the state. They do a crummy job in all of these areas.
 
Quote
While voluntary contributions are the most ideal, the most selfish individuals will not contribute because they fail to recognize that they themselves will likely need help someday.
Öthatís not any of your business, and not for you to decide whether or not they will regret their decisions to not save for retirement or whatever. Thatís called paternalism and it sounds like ďoh, but people are too stupid to own themselves.Ē Why not try to defend Social Security while you're at it.
Quote
DRO's would become the most powerful organizations, violate privacy, and initiate violence in the name of retribution and/or self-defense.
This is preposterous. But I canít explain it better than Stefan has. I posted a debate on this forum when he nails this exact point better than anyone Iíve ever heard. The summary is that this couldnít happen when people are depending upon voluntary cooperation. Even if it was possible, when do you think these abuses would happen most, under a monolithic standard of law or a polycentric one. If humans are so evil and they all want to take over the world, why create authority positions for them?
Quote
Liberty is only possible if natural rights are protected. I may be able to mostly protect, and provide for myself, but the fact that I cannot completely protect, and provide for myself means that I may, someday, need the assistance of others.
Ö.Great, just donít put a gun to me and tell me I have to be the one to help you. If I want to I will. You
DONíT own me, no matter how high and mighty you think your intentions are.
Quote
Legally binding social contracts (government) can clearly state the rules
Ö.I didnít sign any contract. And the rules are not objective, they are arbitrary. They are often times bought.
Quote
This is where you live in fantasy world. The state is not the magical benevolent thing you think it is.
provide assistance for capturing criminals, justice to provide restitution to victims, and assistance for the indigent.
ÖIt can do all of these thingsÖ.poorly. It can also do a lot of negative things, like kill, steal, kidnap, torture, and murder on an unbelievably large scale.
Quote
Limited government does not have to be violent by definition and it does not have to be designed to expand into an empire.
Ö.if itís not violent, then itís voluntary. So then itís voluntaryism. So then itís anarchy. If you force me to pay into your ďsafety netsĒ or your ďsecurity forcesĒ then you are forcing me. Thatís called violence, which as you above mentioned, is ďtechnicallyĒ correct.
Quote
The limited government I envision is non-aggressive
Öagain, unless itís voluntaryism, thatís not possible.
Quote
I would not force anyone to pay, but I would design taxation around products, excluding land, food, energy, communications, and housing.
Öthis is forcing people to pay. If I want to purchase said taxed product without paying you, what will you do? You will seize my property, or imprison me. Thatís force. Donít try to get around it by saying ďdesign taxation aroundÖ.Ē
Quote
I would collect taxes
Öunder the threat of violence?? HmmÖ noticing a pattern.
Quote
on all other products for the collective good (help the unable people, sheriff, courts,etc)
Öwhy do you get to decide the collective good? Oh yeah, you think you own others, but Iím not a piece of livestock. I donít really care if you think itís the public good to steal my resources and give them others. No, not the poor, no, not the sheriffs or judges. Iíll decide for myself.
Quote
minimally, but take enough to pay for essential services.  If an individual simply refused to help society by opting out of taxes, then they would be selfish (not deserving of help when they need it) but free to do so.
Öbut itís either taking, or itís not. If Iím free to opt out, then thatís one step closer to voluntaryism. However, itís still not there yet, because you donít have the right to pay a cop to tell me what to do. Iím not going to listen to him, or respect his ďauthority.Ē So itís still not acceptable.
Quote
Not really semantics, you can be as selfish as you wish without fear of being caged.

A limited government would not police the people, but employed a sheriff, courts and justice system to provide restitution to victims of violators of natural rights, imprison violent offenders, as well as, provide a safety net for people to prevent starvation, freezing, and dire circumstances.

There would be no reason to throw you in jail for hiring your own protection agency, but it would be redundant. Your protection agency would have to go through the government courts to demand justice.
Ö.what makes your courts so special that they are capable of providing ďjustice.Ē I reject this idea completely.  I donít ďhaveĒ to go through your courts to demand justice. What makes your judges infallible arbiters of disputes? Again, this is where govít is your religion. Itís kind of like a diluted form of Objectivism. You think itís possible to have perfectly objective rules and methods of enforcing the rules. This isnít true.
Quote
Anarcho-capitalists rarely/never present a "picture" of what society would look like under a voluntary system, or even answer the simple questions such as,"who designates real property boundaries in an anarchical environment?"  It's an important concept and vital to laissez-faire free market capitalism and liberty.
Ö.We canít provide a complete ďpicture.Ē Weíre not central planners, so we donít know. The answer is really that simple. I like to use what I call the ďStarving ex-communist fallacyĒ since I donít know enough about formal logic to give it a proper name. Suppose you lived under the USSR for your whole life, and the govít always fed you. Then when the USSR collapsed, you canít imagine eating without the govít. You canít possibly imagine how the market could just provide it for you. But it can, and does. Being able to see the future, and paint a picture of what the economy looks like, is not something thatís easy to do. In fact itís impossible. There are some people who help paint parts of the picture, and thatís called entrepreneurship. They paint the reality. Not everyone is capable of doing this, but it doesnít mean you can cast out voluntaryism. Failing to understand this just means you donít think like an entrepreneur. Even under a govít, I canít ďpictureĒ exactly what the world will look like in 10 years. I donít know. If I can see the ways a few things might work, then that would make me an entrepreneur.
Quote
I see today's problems clearly as a central bank fiat money controlled political system which barely resembles the vision painted in the "Preamble."  An honest monetary system would limit government and fix many of the wrongs we endure today. The central banking cabal is the culprit. A well designed limited constitutional republic is the answer.
Öthis is impossible. A republic is the answer, but a republic is what we tried. You canít have a system that resembles the ďPreamble.Ē You canít give people power and say, okay, now make sure you donít cross any of those lines we wrote down here. They nod and say okay, yeah, ďI swear toÖ.Ē And guess what? Then they laugh at you. Literally. Nancy Pelosi laughed when asked about the constitutionality of the Health Care Bill. You canít concentrate the authority in their hands like that, and then say, ďUmm, excuse me. Thatís not in the rules.Ē They donít care. You surrendered yourself. They own you, and itís too late. Even  if it could ďworkĒ (which it absolutely cannot) I never signed the document, so itís not binding on me.
Quote
plus it can be amended as needed.
Öokay, so they donít listen to the rules, but weíre going to get them to place more rules on themselves??? Even if you could, then it would end up like every other check on govít power. Just words on parchment. Worthless. Meaningless. Pieces of paper donít bind men when they have all the guns. They laugh at you.
Quote
I prefer limited government to some abstract concept that no one can clearly define and must be studied in depth to understand... especially when I view the Voluntary ideology as inferior in concept to begin with... i.e. self absorbed (selfish).
ÖTo the first part I ask why? No one has ever put down a system of property rights that is completely perfect and completely consistent. Why do you need to control everyone and force your system on them? Why canít the ultimate confederacy work, where each person is sovereign? That was part of the idea of the republic in the first place. Competing rules, competing ways of life and see how it works. Vote with your feet. Choose the right neighbors.
Quote
A monopoly in justice is appropriate for government because natural rights are the same for all of us, and equal justice is optimal.
ÖThere are other people who feel this way. They are called nationalists, people who love the concentration of power in central, national authority. Look how thatís worked. Socialists think itís a natural right to steal from you and give it to others. A monopoloy in justice isnít appropriate for govít, it defines govít. Itís a big mistake.
Quote
I would shudder at the thought of your protection agency coming after me because someone mistakenly claimed that I violated your rights. I do not wish to deal with hundreds, or thousands, of protection agencies who are not accountable to a lawful authority.
ÖI shudder at the thought of your govít coming after me because someone mistakenly claimed that I violated your rights. I would much rather deal with a world where none of those agencies is all powerful (anarchy), than your monolithic central authority that cannot be held accountable, and is free to torture me and get away with it. No one can resist your authority.
Quote
Absolutely functional. County courts
Ö.about as functional as the post office, right?
Quote
You cannot answer because the Voluntaryists have no plan.
Önope, no central planners here.
Quote
Voluntaryists are idealists not realists.
Ö I think Iíve clearly turned this argument on itís head at this point. Your republic is a myth, a fairytale. Government is the new Keynesianism. You and many others worship it, but itís not real. It canít be real. Anarchists are the realists.
Quote
I don't argue for totalitarianism. I argue for liberty. The state does indeed have legitimate functions to preserve liberty.
Ö.Govít is totalitarian. It claims to own everything and everyone within a geographic area, regardless of how ďlimitedĒ it is at any point in time. If the master only beats you periodically, heís still your master. He owns you. Thatís hardly liberty. The state preserves liberty about as well as the benevolent slavemasterÖ.
Quote
Poor analogy... I refer you to the preamble... the intent of a republic
Ö.Nope, itís a great analogy. I really donít care what the intent of the republic is. Do you care what the intent of the gorbanelschoschkiv is? No, of course not, because itís not real. Neither is your fairytale republic. It doesnít exist.
Quote
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like predictability. Somalia is not a society I embrace. I like order. Chaos sucks. Each of us having an opportunity to be heard before our peers is justice in an orderly society.
Ö.If you like predictability, then jump on the totalitarian bandwagon. Just own people. Try to own me, and control my behaviorÖ..The free market would be anarchic, and we all know it would work. Anarchy is order my friend.
Quote
One of my great-uncles "wild west" (California gold rush) watched a man hang in 1850 for a crime he did not commit. A couple of days later, when they found the true criminal, they were so mortified by what they had done that the real thief was spared. Voluntary societies fail in justice, too.
ÖThis oneís my favorite. My great uncle watched as governments killed tens of millions of people, and they werenít even accused of crimes. They were implicitly charged with living in a geographic area that did not pay tribute to the govít that was fighting them. These things cannot happen in anarchy. The war in Iraq, could not happen in anarchy. No one can come up with the resources to do that. No one, not Halliburton, not all the oil companies together.
Quote
And I don't have faith that people will somehow automatically voluntarily respect each other and their property anytime soon.  If you do, then leave the keys to your car in the ignition. Or leave your bicycle unlocked.

Ö.I donít have faith (you do). Thatís why I wonít hand people the keys to our whole damn society (including the guns) and say, hey, now you have to obey our rules. Believing in people like that is naÔve. Thatís why Iím anarchist. Bad people will be bad. But they are a minority. Where do the bad people go in our societiesÖ..govít.

Quote
Voluntaryists are likely the most honorable individuals on Earth
Ö.Weíre flattered.

Quote
but they are too quick to give up their privacy for my tastes.
Ö..Howís your republic been doing on the whole privacy thing?
Quote
And they are also the most naive of the human behavior of others.
Ö.This oneís been turned on its head.

Quote
I, for one, want a state for order and justice.
Ö.Yeah, howís that been working over the last 10,000 years? What percentage of the population has gov't tortured, kidnapped, maimed, or killed in the course of human history? How's that order and justice thing going? Your side has had plenty of chances. Govít doesnít ďwork.Ē End of story.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Pages: 1 [2]
  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!