[labgrade]

I propose (assume) that we are all in a constant state of anarchy - in that we will do what we will, based on our own moral code.

Nothing that The State can ever propose will overrule what we already will, or won't do, can ever be regulated. We will do as we want.

As a quick "study," consider speed limits & consumption of marijuana.

Really nothing The Guv(dot com) can do to prevent the breaking of these laws. "Speeding," per se, is a revenue enhancement & has nothing to do with "safety," & the use of MaryJane has no bearing on anything "drug related."

DISsing thes laws may be seen as "anarchy," but I'd say this. & much more isn't - merely telling The Guv to ....

Many would say that "anarchy" is not adhereiung to current laws.

I'd say "anarchy" has always gotten a bad rap & that pure anarchy is adhereing to your own moral c0ode/values - which could easily be much more ofr a "moral code" than what is proscribed by the "dot guv."

What say you?

[rock jock]

"Speeding," per se, is a revenue enhancement & has nothing to do with "safety,"
What in the world makes you think that?

[bad_dad_brad]

The current successful method of government is rule by moral law. It is not perfect, but it is a far better system than anarchy.

For instance, without law, the car you want to break the speed limit in would be an unsafe vehicle unable to do so. Do you know how many good laws have been passed to insure your automobile can stop safely and handle properly?

We may be animals, but it is our good laws that keep us above the dogs.

What say I?

I say the thread starter must have had a bit too much hooch before posting.

[Atticus]

"I propose (assume) that we are all in a constant state of anarchy - in that we will do what we will, based on our own moral code."

Well...I do agree with your first statement. And I'm glad we have prisons for those who have a different moral code than I, and see nothing wrong with robbery, murder, rape, etc.

[ahadams]

well as an old drill sergeant once told me "you can do anything you want to at least once, as long as you're willing to take the consequences of your actions".

[2nd Amendment]

Really, Brad? Most of the vehicles I drive are from the early 70's and before. They all handle fine, accelerate great and stop fine. So far as I can remember the goobermint had very little or nothing to do with their construction or design back then and I'd prefer to drive them as opposed to most anything produced today.

Good laws? I can think of maybe a dozen. The rest are crap.

[bad_dad_brad]

Ahhhh, 2nd Amendment, I will pit my 2003 Audi A4 against any comparable 1970's sports sedan. Just pick the track. Make sure it has plenty of curves.

But seriously, the point I was trying to make is that anarchy, that is, lawlessness, is no system for civilization. All you have to do is study history to understand that. And there are plenty of good laws.

I will admit that many laws, even good ones, are too detailed. But consider this little law about automobile tires. You must have at least 1/8 tread on them to be safe, therefore legal. Can't argue with that.

If you have bald tires in the rain, on the interstate, going 80 MPH, please stay away from me.

[labgrade]

Seems to have taken a turn towards traffic-stuff - works enough.

rock_jock,

I can't see where a 50 MPH limit has anything to do with a road (& vehicle) capable of close to twice that. Regular traffic in Denver is 65+ while posted as 55. BTW, who is it that sets these limits? Is it based on anything "safe," or moreso on generating revenues? Have a bud who sat on a "community board" whose sole function was to see how to generate revenue from "ne'r-do-wells." Traffic violations was numero uno.

As with our latest "50+ killed due to the heavy snow fall" ... they were driving too fast for the conditions & merely killed themselves (& possibly others). Please do tell what laws in place saved these lives. Those that drove according to physics likely lived through it.

Far as "murder, rape, robbery," et al .... pu-leeze.

Nobody on this side of the keyboard suggests anything such.

But, I'd posit that there is no law that would prevent a sick-o from doing it. & too, that there might not be a law wouldn't cause one of us good guys to go out & do something "anarchistic."

I don't see any law preventing anyone from doing something that they're already bent upon doing.

[ahadams]

what you haven't seem to have grasped is that anarchists are, and always will be in the minority. One of the reasons for this is that those of us who believe that anarchy is a bad thing, if placed in an a situation where anarchy exists for some reason, will band together to eliminate the anarchists *first* and then negotiate our differences later when you're all dead.

You and all others who support anarchy will be the first target. We all promise. Do you get it now?:fire:

[labgrade]

You, Sir ahadams, are funny & have missed my take on this entirely.

Kill me & those of like-mind!? Surely you jest, or are perhaps a true "anarchist" yourself.

How can you be so trite, mean-spirited & (dare I suggest) lawless?

(& just for history's sake, let's copy your post here. Wouldn't want that edited later, now would we?

"what you haven't seem to have grasped is that anarchists are, and always will be in the minority. One of the reasons for this is that those of us who believe that anarchy is a bad thing, if placed in an a situation where anarchy exists for some reason, will band together to eliminate the anarchists *first* and then negotiate our differences later when you're all dead.

You and all others who support anarchy will be the first target. We all promise. Do you get it now? :fire: " )

Kill me. That is truly choice.

I merely propose that we will obey those laws as we see fit - nothing more & you're reading way more into what I've brought up for discussion than I'd subscribe to.

If you speed - I'd suggest you are, in your own way & to an extent, an anarchist. How dare you "take the law into your own hands?"

I don't kill someone because it's against the law. I don't kill someone because it's not the right thing to do. Same-same for theft, rape, yada, etc.

A moral code. You see?

I'd submit that if any of you holier than thous break any law whatsoever, you are an anarchist - to some extent. You merely decide to be one only a little bit. & how dare you decide when, where & what laws you'll break? Mighty cheeky, don'tcha think?

I speed when road conditions allow. I go much slower when they don't. I don't do illegal drugs, I don't steal, I don't rape, or even cheat on my taxes. Likely, I'm more "law abiding" than are you - in all things.

I merely suggest that we "obey" the laws that allow us to coexist because we want to, not because we are forced to.

You, with others, have missed the point entirely.

But illegally "kill me." I still can't get over that reaction. How absolutely perfect a response from a knee-jerk "law-abider."

[DadOfThree]

labgrade,
You are right in that laws can not prevent people from doing whatever it is that they have in mind. That includes murder, rape or whatever. What the laws do is attempt to give society a means to get these sociopaths off the streets so they can't continue to do these things.
If there were no laws for some reason, like minded people would band together to to form some kind of agreement on how to coexist (laws). I don't know that "kill all of the anarchists" would be the first task at hand though. :D
If you speed - I'd suggest you are, in your own way & to an extent, an anarchist.
My dictionary defines an anarchist as one who opposes all existing forms of govrnment. If I speed, I am willing to risk paying a fine, I don't know that that in and of itself makes me opposed to all forms of government.
The government has made so many laws that everyone breaks some insignificant law at some time or another. In your opinion, does this mean that the government has forced everyone to become anarchists to some extent? What about the people who want government to take care of every aspect of our lives, Are they anarchists and statists at the same time? They have certainly broken laws from time to time.

[labgrade]

DadO'3,

"I don't know that "kill all of the anarchists" would be the first task at hand though."

Whew! & thanks. A good enough place to start, methinks.

Gettiing murdered by the "law-abiding" seems such a sultry end to one who'd only want to posit a query .... ;)

I would like to take this to a bit more lite-hearted theme, if possible. I'm not out to "change the world." Far from it & merely would like to explore what we think about what we "know."

Thass all.

Worst case, we argue in a harmless environment & may explore some things we haven't thought about before. (shrugs shoulders & extends a hearty handshake)

I'd submit that the standard dictionary definition of anarchy is as much crap as so much other things we "know" to be true.

I'd bet that a better description is "anarchy" is an "active disagreement & refusal to obey" to what are current laws.

Without going too religeous, the 10 Commandments pretty much covers it for me, & even those are a further expansion of The One Rule = (yada - for our aetheists) .... & "love your neighbor as yourself."

Buy into that & what else is needed?

Yes. I am a rational anarchist.

I know that there are certain things (rules - whatever) we need to coexist (& I'm full-willing to do so). However, there are way too many BS laws that do nothing to allow that social lubricant, & merely confuse the whole issue while attempting to address things that can never be solved.

My "anarchy" is that I will always be socially responsible, in every aspect, & frankly, moreso than any legal-thing, any lawful entity will ever be. A moral code that never could be written - except once.

But I'll never subscribe to anything "stupid."

Some yahoo comes up with some stupid law & frankly, I'll bow out.

Quick point for a check:

State or fed-yahoos decide that your scoped, bolt-gun is a "threat to national security" & must be registered/turned in - yada.

Whadda ya do?

You know absolutely that your possession of same isn't a threat. But violating this law is a felony = "anarchy" - you've decided to take the law into your own hands, no?

You are now an anarchist - by definition.

Please do dispute it.

[DadOfThree]

However, there are way too many BS laws that do nothing to allow that social lubricant, & merely confuse the whole issue while attempting to address things that can never be solved
I agree completely!! I guess my own perception of anarchism has been someone who does not want any rules, not someone who just doesn't like the bad rules. Not liking the bad rules just seems more like common sense than anything else. :D

[tyme]

Does a potential criminal knowing he/she may get caught create a deterrent? Does punishment of caught criminals add to this deterrence? Does punishment of caught criminals have a significantly positive effect on society?

Labgrade, yes, let's consider speeding and marijuana use. Please tell me how many people who speed will routinely go >25mph over the speed limit if their car and the conditions make it safe. Please tell me how many people who believe marijuana should be legal will smoke it in public. Do you really think laws and their enforcement have no deterrent effect?

On the other hand, government punishment is essentially just revenge by government. Some people never get caught, even for violent crimes. Is there any difference between worrying about the victim or a friend/relative of the victim avenging the crime and worrying about the government avenging it?

I'm not sure whether I'm against government as long as it supplements potential (though illegal) retribution by citizens. This victimless crime stuff really needs to stop, though. If my worst response in anarchy is to grab someone's joint/crackpipe/whatever from them and stomp on it, do they really need to go to prison?

I'm not terribly impressed with the current state of government that wants to punish everyone for everything. Maybe people couldn't deal with anarchism thousands of years ago without unjustly killing each other. But how do we know? And how do we know that anarchy today would be a disaster? Don't knock it till you've tried it. One reason I don't commit serious crimes is that I don't want to get shot. I'm confident that if I could avoid getting shot in the short term, I could avoid capture/identification. Therefore the primary external deterrent that prevents me from committing serious crimes wouldn't change at all if the government disintegrated tomorrow.

Is it too much to suggest that anarchism would be worse than what we have now? Laws may not prevent murder, rape, etc., but I assure you they prevent some crimes. Most of the ones they don't prevent but that the CJS successfully catches perpetrator(s) of are committed by people too stupid to realize that fellow citizens, at least in the U.S., haven't given up all rights to defend themselves and their property just because there's a government and a police force.

Is vigilanteism in democratic nations prohibited because the State can do a better job of meting out justice or because vigilanteism destroys the coherence of a State in its ability to protect us as a society? I don't know if the former is true anymore. With the threat of terrorism and the war on drugs, the government's consequential abuse of essentially innocent citizens may be exceeding the abuse of innocent citizens that would occur by fellow citizens in anarchy. The latter is complete garbage; why should an admission by the State that it cannot protect us all (which it already acknowledges) prevent it from mounting an adequate defense against threats it can mitigate (either through simple war or through MAD)? I'm not going to complain about a state that protects me from others via a nuclear arsenal just because it can't protect me from a psychotic neighbor.

[labgrade]

"I guess my own perception of anarchism has been someone who does not want any rules, not someone who just doesn't like the bad rules. Not liking the bad rules just seems more like common sense than anything else."

Yippee! Ya-hoo! ;)

A(nother) convert to "rational anarchy!"

What else, Sir, & of course.

& to not pound the puppy too hard, all laws are based on "the right thing to do." Always & with an explicit restraint to make these laws to only be enough to ensure the furtherance of any society - "doing the right thing," huh?

When the laws extend to be more than what any society needs for its ... uhm ... "protection," it then becomes tyranical, to serve its own needs.

At that time, it should be resisted.

I'd guess, by definition, one would be an "anarchist" by refusing to bow to the whims of "the new order."

& still, I could likely argue both ways.

Let's have at it.

[tyme]

Not liking some rules is a reason to replace the government, not a reason to get rid of it, and therefore I don't see how anyone not agreeing with all the rules is an anarchist.

[Zak Smith]

I am a big fan of L. Neil Smith's fiction, in which he proposes an alternative "Propertarian" society - effectively anarchism. I also vote Libertarian in just about every election.

The biggest question I see hanging over an anarchist society, in which the majority of the people recognize the non-aggression principle ("no initiation of force; force in defense is perfectly fine") is: Are there are cases in which initiation of force is just and proper? If there is a dispute - ie, a difference of opinion on who initiated force (for example: a contract violation) - then who will broker the initiation of force? One legitimate role of government - if one exists - is this monopoly on the initiation of force.

regards
Zak

[Chris Rhines]

The fact that government has a monopoly on the licit initation of force is the most compeling reason to eliminate it entirely. The reasoning here should be obvious; if one, and only one social structure has the ability to initate force without consequences, said organization will initate force any time doing so will improve its lot. Bad situation.

Labgrade's original premise is dead-on - we are all anarchists, to the extent that we obey only the rules, laws, and strictures that we cannot safely disregard. If the state and all of its coercive laws were to disappear tomorrow, how many people here would behave any differently (aside from buying boatloads of machineguns???) When Bastiat called the state "The Great Fiction" he wasn't just whistlin' Dixie...

Rules fall into two different categories. First, there are rules that are agreed to by all parties (Zak, remember unanimous consent?) Those kinds of rules are fine.

The other kind are rules that are imposed by an external party through brute force or the threat thereof. These are the kind of rules beloved of gov't functionaries. They are bad.

I think that it is unethical to attempt to rule others through brute force - therefore I am an anarchist. Happy day!

- Chris

[Poodleshooter]

If the state and all of its coercive laws were to disappear tomorrow, how many people here would behave any differently
There are some for whom the rule of law IS morality,ie anything legal is right, and anything illegal is wrong. Absent that rule of law, they have nothing other than the strength of others to restrain them. If you happen to be the weaker party in such a society, or the "odd man out", then you're in trouble. Most people can easily put themselves in the mindset of the weaker party, so it becomes easy for them to accept the rule of law as a protection. The common belief that there are a large number of citizens who would harm others in the absence of government enforced law is what maintains the rule of law through the will of the people. It's the driving belief behind the authoritarian mindset.

[Atticus]

"Labgrade's original premise is dead-on - we are all anarchists, to the extent that we obey only the rules, laws, and strictures that we cannot safely disregard. If the state and all of its coercive laws were to disappear tomorrow, how many people here would behave any differently..."

You guys use the assumption that everyone is like you. I don't think so. Do you really thing that everyone has an acceptable moral compass? To think that the majority or even a minority of people would act responsibly in a lawless world is naive. Anarchy by defination is ....well.... anarchy. Anarchy is a natural state that was overcome, first by consensus, and then by government.

[Chris Rhines]

There are some for whom the rule of law IS morality,ie anything legal is right, and anything illegal is wrong. Absent that rule of law, they have nothing other than the strength of others to restrain them. Yup. Level 4 social personalities. Unpleasant people to be around. But I figure that in the absence of external government, most problems of that nature will be self-correcting (i.e. they'll kill themselves off, and good riddance!)

If you happen to be the weaker party in such a society, or the "odd man out", then you're in trouble. Which is why I spend so much time at the range...

The common belief that there are a large number of citizens who would harm others in the absence of government enforced law is what maintains the rule of law through the will of the people. This is an excellent point. My response to such a statement is usually along the lines of, "Don't try to sell my freedom for your security.) But the meme remains...

- Chris

[Chris Rhines]

Atticus - Don't try to sell my freedom for your security.

- Chris

[Kaylee]

I dunno....

... given a history in the last hundred years of two World Wars (and assorted brush wars), a generation under the constant threat of MAD with hydrogen bombs, and assorted "Ethnic Cleansings" under color of law in every little corner of the globe ...

well, let's just say it's kinda hard for me to imagine that anarchy would really have much worse results than this fascination with nation-states we've built up of late.


-K

[casual]

anarchy is for kids - utopian claptrap

government is a necessary evil, so let's concentrate on limiting its scope and size in proportion to those few things it must do

our government must, at a minimum, guard our borders, wage war against agressors and punish those who would violate our rights as enshrined by the United States Constitution

those rights are, of course, granted by our Creator, not the government

this anarchy stuff is fine for college dorm rooms and flavor-of-the-month-spoiled-yuppie-kid protests, but not the real world

[Thumper]

Ah, anarchy...yeah, class warfare is fun for the kiddies. :rolleyes:

Tell ya what, anarchists, why doncha' go to sub Saharan Africa and "axe" them what they think of anarchy?

Machetes are optional.

[Blackhawk]

You've discovered the secret of a republic -- a little splash of anarchy! :D

[Atticus]

Chis: As someone said earlier, I provide my own secuity even if it means shooting anarchists who pose the greatest risk to me and my family. I could give a flip about your rights, if they endanger me and mine. I'm a realist... not an abstract dreamer. I am curious about what you consider your rights to be, and how those affect my safety. If you consider the speed limit on the street in front of my house to be a viloation of your rights, that's one thing, but if you want to smoke pot in your living room that's quite another. I am against overbearing government, but that's a far cry from anarchy. I'm an advocate of responsible laws and Government- not tyranny or anarchism.

[ahadams]

One of the things that anarchists and anarcholibertarians do not grasp is that there are a significant number of us folks who have been around the block more than once, and because of that are confirmed statists. Yep, that's right, if for some reason the government were all vaporized tomorrow morning, by the day after tomorrow, we'd have formed committees and instituted the beginnings of another one.

We would also be organizing the vast majority of folks who do NOT want to take all of the responsibility for themselves in support of the reconstituted state. That's what you need to understand.

You see you will never be allowed to do anything more than play your little mindgames (I'd use another word for it but Oleg would object) with yourselves. If you ever try to implement any of your fantasies (including the current 'state of jefferson' nonsense floating around in various circles) while the current state exists you will be stopped by force, and if the current state were to suddenly cease to exist (or cease to operate, which would be effectively the same thing) there are more than enough of us intent on reinstituting the state, that you will not prevent us from doing so...and again you will be stopped by force if neccessary.

Understand that neither we nor those who do not want to take full responsibility can be convinced otherwise...we are not open to any of your arguments.

Understand that we serve external absolute values, regardless of what you may or may not believe concerning the existance of such values.

Understand that there is no room for compromise.

Understand that there is no room for discussion.

Things would be a whole lot simpler if the folks in mental anarchic fantasy land simply understood all of the above.

[Kaylee]

so um ahadams...

are you arguing that it's morally *correct* to kill those who won't live by a state-imposed moral code beyond some variant of "an it harm none, do as ye will?"

Or are you merely saying that the more state-minded folks WILL do said killing, whether morally justfied or not?


Those strike me as very different positions, though to be honest, I don't think I could really say which one disturbs me more....

-K

[Tamara]

We would also be organizing the vast majority of folks

"Give me someone to tell what to do, or give me death!" :rolleyes:




It all boils down to this: Can you govern yourself, or do you need to be governed?

[nualle]

ahadams declared solemnly: You see you will never be allowed to do anything more than play your little mindgames (I'd use another word for it but Oleg would object) with yourselves. If you ever try to implement any of your fantasies (including the current 'state of jefferson' nonsense floating around in various circles) while the current state exists you will be stopped by force, and if the current state were to suddenly cease to exist (or cease to operate, which would be effectively the same thing) there are more than enough of us intent on reinstituting the state, that you will not prevent us from doing so...and again you will be stopped by force if neccessary.
While you and your buddies are organizing your ideocratic ("we serve external absolute values"), slaving ("We would also be organizing the vast majority of folks who do NOT want to take all of the responsibility for themselves") state over there, we anarchists will be firming up our cooperative networks over here. I don't say "setting up" because we already cooperate, despite the State, and will only continue to do so, broadening the scope of our cooperation. If you act to stop us by force, you will be committing unprovoked aggression. I think the vast majority on this board agree what is the appropriate response to unprovoked aggression.

My question to you is this: Why would you feel compelled to stop us? You are in no danger of losing your statists (rulers) to us. The only statees (ruled) you would lose would be the fractious ones who make your rule over the rest more difficult and expensive. Why not let them join us and let us worry about them? If indeed they're not prepared to be self-ruling, it is in our own interests to make certain they self-correct.

[Thumper]

I'm an advocate of responsible laws and Government- not tyranny or anarchism.
I agree with you, Atticus. Seems there are both tyrants and anarchists posting in this one, though.

[Tamara]

"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -Professor de la Paz, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, by Robert A. Heinlein

[Sir Galahad]

It's funny how many people are dusting off ideas that never worked and presenting them as "new" ideas. Like the current crop of "anti-capitalists" who are nothing more than your old, run-of-the-mill communists.

I am a former card-carrying anarcho-syndicalist. (Industrial Workers of the World.) Had all the Joe Hill dues stickers in my little red book. You guys espousing "anarchy" are so deluded, it's funny. Let me tell you, the IWW in groups of more than three couldn't agree on a T-shirt logo, to say nothing of running a country. What's more they're nothing more than socialists of a purer Marxist vision where everything is communal. If "anarchists" ever came to power, the next day, they'd be shooting people they disagreed with. "Liberty", "equality" and other catch words are just to whip up the masses. Like "workers are entitled to all the goods they can produce." Sounds god, doesn't it? Yeah, but what are you going to do with 10,000 frying pans if that's what your syndicate produces? What if you need water and the other syndicate decides they are entitled to ALL that their labor produces and don't want to share? C'mon, guys. You're going to tell me 3,000 tyrants one mile away are preferable to one tyrant 3,000 miles away? The IWW I know would have been more than happy to come forward with "solutions" (most of them "Final Solutions", by the way) after the proletariat did their dirty work. That's why I ripped up my red book. I've been and done. How many of you "anarchists" out there put your money where your mouths are and were actual REAL anarcho-syndicalists and not some posers spouting ideals you don't even understand fully? The revolution doesn't happen with words, people. "Push out a bayonet. If it strikes fat, push deeper. If it strikes iron, pull back for another day."---Lenin. Oh, you don't think YOUR anarchy and socialism are mutually compatable? How many of you actually READ Karl Marx? What Marx espoused was the "people" running affairs. What the Soviets called "the dictatorship of the proletariat." How is that different than "anarchy" where the "people" decide everything? You know, it's a funny thing. The far left and far right all meet in the middle somewhere in the back.

Yeah, tell me more about "anarchy"... :rolleyes:

[Tamara]

No offense, but I think you have absolutely no idea where I'm coming from.

How familiar are you with Market Anarchism, Minarchism, Libetarianism, Agorism, Propertism, et al, anyway?

[Sir Galahad]

Tamara, no offense, but things such as science fiction novels are not things to base a government on. And, no offense, but have you any idea how many "flavors" an idea can come in and, yet, still basically boil down to the same thing?

I spent quite a few years listening to people say "Oh, no! OURS is different!" I am sure there are different anarchist ideas. Just as there are different Marxist ideas such as Marxism, socialism, social democracy, Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, the American socialism of Debs, the American socialism of DeLeon, communism, Christain socialism, and so on and so forth. Don't say I have "absolutely no idea what you're talking about." Indeed, I may know far more about it than you do. If I may ask, to what organization do you pay dues to and atend meetings of? Any one person may establish a political philosophy that seems workable to that one person. But it has to appeal to a signiicant number of people for it to even be considered feasible. Further, those people have to be organized together and working to achieve those aims for it to be taken seriously and not just more coffeehouse "what if" talk over double lattes and Gauloises. For example, one man might espouse what he calls "market communism", but unless the communist community says, "yes, that is communism", or a group of people formally organize and claim it to be, it is NOT communism, it is merely something one man SAYS is communism while most communists do not agree. Yes, that is didactic. But the truth is that unless you are organized, we have merely your word that what you say is what that means. As a former anarchist who has been a member of a large and old anarcho-syndicalist organization, I KNOW what anarchism is regardless of new twists on the old branch. While people might be adding new meanings to the word "anarchy", as a politcal philosophy, it MUST retain much of its original meaning or it would not be termed "anarchism" now would it? One may call oneself a "Mao communist", but unless one retains a large portion of communist doctrine in that belief system, it cannot be communism. Therefore, unless you have retained a significant portion of original anarchist political belief, you cannot call anything you wish "anarchism" and insist it be so.

[Kaylee]

sounds to me like a classic case of different people using the same word to mean different things.

Some folks seem to be assuming that "anarchy" means "I can do whatever I want, and to heck with the consequences." Understandable, I guess, given the apparently irresponsible rocker kids painting "-A-" signs all over bridges and trains and such a decade or so ago.

Other folks seem to be using the word to mean some kind of stateless-but-dictatorial union of old-line Communism. Also understable, given the Wobblies' pipe dreams of a half century and more ago.

Still others use "anarchy" to mean simply "the absence of a coercive State" -- with the understanding that coercion is just as wrong for individuals, clubs, churches, labor unions, or stamp collectors as it is for governments, and that all people are responsible for their own actions.

I submit that the conversation would be much more productive if we'd dispense with the word "anarchy" altogether for the duration of the conversation, and instead explain more precisely what we mean. I suspect, knowing this crowd, that there's less disagreement than we think on most topics.


-K


PS -- since I apparently have a dog in this fight, I won't play "roving moderator" here. But I suggest that posts along the lines of "you ignorant naive child" get some self-censorship.

Argue ideas, not people.

Thanks. :)

[Sir Galahad]

I am sure we all share some common ground, or we wouldn't be on this forum.:D

Yes, I believe that the federal government oversteps itself quite often. Income tax is ridiculously high and an excuse for the feds to confiscate property. Or say, "Aha! You didn't pay enough taxes this year! You owe us $4,000 please, payable yesterday. Can't afford that? Check out our payment plan with 50% interest." The federal government deems itself a judge of the Constitution and takes away rights. "Can't have that, can't smoke that, can't own that, can't do that." For reasons that often asinine, at best.

That said, I distrust local and state governments even more. They can put "sales taxes" on things to penalize you for buying things they think you shouldn't. They are the ones who pass laws banning "doule-edged knives" or "assault weapons" more often than not. Look at California trying to tax owners of solar and wind energy systems for the energy they DON'T use from the grid. At last, a "non-sales" tax. Eevery politician's dream. They'll tax you for not using other things next. Again, which is worse? One tyrant 3,000 miles away, or 3,000 tyrants one mile away?

Now, if I were to be asked if I want to be led by a group of the people living in my community, I'd say no. Some of these people are no more fit to lead than Ted Kennedy. Even if that meant I'd have perhaps more personal freedom, at what cost? Or maybe less personal freedom. "The community has decided that all guns should be kept under lock and key at the armory."

I would much rather work within a system that has provided for the highest standard of living and freedom in the world for decades than throw out the baby with the bathwater for some untried "maybe" system. I'm not saying the federal government is perfect. No government is perfect. But too many "solutions" often turn out to be worse than the systems they replace. The Czar was a tyrant, but Stalin killed more people than the last czar did. Cambodia was ruled by charlatans, but Pol Pot was far worse. I am very leery of anyone proclaiming "solutions" or "answers" that are defined almost in terms of perfection. As they say, the devil you know...

There is always room to improve. But starting new all the time never improves anything. If you don't have time to fix what you've got, how will you have time to fix what you might get?

[Tamara]

Income tax is ridiculously high

No, "income tax" is theft, plain and simple. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change its porcine nature.

What right does anyone have to siphon off the sweat of my brow?

[Sir Galahad]

So, Tamara, what you're saying is that you enjoy the benefits of a government but with no obligations to pay for it? In other words, you'd rather we had no standing military, no inspection of foodstuffs (speaking of anarchists and socialists, ever read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? Not all of that was made up, you know), no punishment of interstate crimes (such as child pornography), no one to oversee airline travel, no interstate highways, no building codes. On a state and local level, no sanitary drinking water, no sewer systems, no flood control, no police or fire protection. Theft is a mighty big word. See, I'm not in favor of throwing babies out with bathwater. Tax reform, yes, but paying no taxes is not going to happen.

I'd much rather have the things that make civilization civilized (like clean water) and pay for those things than find myself paying with my life for the "freedom" to catch such wonderful diseases as e. coli from uninspected meat or the myriad of fatal diseases passed through unsanitary drinking water for free.

[Baba Louie]

Would some of you people please consider using the concept of "paragraghs" when ranting" Or is that just written anarchy on your part?:D (don't tell ME how to write Baba Louie)

The old "Social Contract vs. True Liberty/Freedom" thing yet again eh?

I never signed a social contract, yet I'm glad we all drive on the right side of the roads (darn those Brits for getting it bass-ackwards).

Rules? We don need no steenkin rules?

Who's in charge here? I'm in charge here. Says who? Says my mob, thats who. Oh yeah? Yeah, or we'll kill ya. OH! OK. Why didn't ya say so? Jeez

How dare you want to be an individual. Lets all gang up and kill the white wolf. She's the only one in the group and she DOES look and act a little different.

Laws = (according to Harry Harrison) Crystalized Prejudices of a Community

You're free to follow them or not.

If you can find a deserted island and populate it you can either end up in a Lord of the Flies mode or you can organize the people you find yourself living with into adopting some form of order... or not. Who gets to choose?

Less (laws) = more (freedom) in this case, I oftentimes ponder.

Kinda wish it was 1830, I lived in the mountains with a Hawken Rifle, some traps and could live in peace for a spell.

Anarchy ... in my mind maybe. Reality soon sets in.

Adios

[Roadkill Coyote]

The problem with all this is that,

"active disagreement & refusal to obey"
is not the definition of Anarchism. Trying to redefine it as such is nothing but a semantic facelift, and it has already had so many of those that its nose is in worse shape than Micheal Jackson's. :rolleyes: Anarchy is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/A0282000.html)

1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
What we are really discussing here is Civil Disobedience (http://www.bartleby.com/61/74/C0377400.html), or Noncooperation (http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/N0136800.html) . Trying to rope people who stand for Civil Disobedience into calling themselves anarchists by playing word games is intellectually dishonest, and doesn't get us anywhere but into endless bickering.

[4v50 Gary]

Sir Galahad - I concur with your views of anarchy. I did a lot of reading on the early anarchists of the 20th Cent (our first bomb throwing terrorists). Like Marxism, it cannot work. Anarchy is based on the premise that man is intrinsically good and will help his fellow man. Unfortunately, while there is some truth to it, what about the greedy ones who hoard and fail to share? Secondly, like Socialism, it ignores a man (or woman's) instinct to care for their immediate family before looking after the community interest. People will work harder to improve the lot of their immediate family as opposed to "society."

The dictatorship of the proletariat saw the elimination of the aristocracy and the church. In their place we saw the party, the military and the bureaucracy rise above the masses. Someone had to vacation in those nice dachas by the Black Sea. Even setting aside Russia as the example, China, Romania, and every other "communist" nation saw the rise of an elite composed of party members, high ranking military officers and bureacrats/politicians.

At least with our society, there is a reasonable chance at the middle class dream (hey, I made it) and for a very few, rich.

[Tamara]

I'd much rather ... pay for those things

Are you saying that you wouldn't pay for those things without a gun to your head?

Are you saying that no one would provide them without the compulsion of the Guns Of The State?

[TallPine]

If "anarchists" ever came to power

Isn't that some sort of oxymoron ......? :confused:


Hmmm, people are basically good, or people are basically evil?

Personally, I tend toward the latter, but what difference does it make?

Wasn't it Reagan that said "If no man can govern himself, who can govern another?'



Kinda wish it was 1830, I lived in the mountains with a Hawken Rifle, some traps and could live in peace for a spell

Yeah, Baba, I'm with you on that one (listen to the song in my signature) but you better watch your topknot ;)

[Sir Galahad]

Tamara, no one is "putting a gun to my head." This is not the Soviet Union where there are KGB border guards keeping us IN. We are free to come and go from this country as we please. Even immigrate to what is perceived as a "better" country. Gun to my head, indeed! Clean water, roads, schools, police, firefighters and clean food sell themselves. No need for guns to heads.

As far as people providing them in your stateless utopia, I'm sure some people would. Water for $10 a gallon. No regs for purity, too, so maybe it's from a horse trough or from a well a dead body laid in for two weeks. Or maybe it is clean. Who would know? Human nature being what it is, I'll stick with clean water from the government as opposed to some hazy premise of possibe clean water from an untried political system.

But, quid pro quo. If you feel the government is putting a "gun to your head", why don't you immigrate to another country? Im not saying "love it or leave it" or trying to be insulting. I'm saying that if it were me and I felt the government was unjust, I'd leave. I wouldn't stay in such a country. And why would you espouse a revolution none of the majority of us wants? Most of us grumble, but, all in all, most of us are happy with what we've got. If not, there would already have been a revolution.

[TallPine]

Human nature being what it is, I'll stick with clean water from the government

Trouble is, you have to factor that human nature thing into governments as well, since most governments are comprised of humans.

[Sir Galahad]

True, but most of the world's people are trying to get IN to this country and very few are leaving to the extent others leave their own nations. That tells me there's a lot right and good about this country. No, it's not perfect. But it's a damn sight closer to it than most of the world. Yes, keeping government honest requires hard work. But everything worth having in life requires work. Our standard of living is higher than just about everyone else on the planet. Our complaints really seem pretty trivial when you look at the complaints people in other countries have. Complaints such as: "The secret police came and took tata away this morning because he said he didn't love the Great Leader." "The water made all the people sick and the old people and children already died." "The army came and took our food away and took away the oxen we use to drag our plows." "The police raped the village women and threatened to kill anyone who interfered." "A woman who was raped was stoned to death for adultery." In light of that, our complaints about taxes seem pretty petty, don't they? I'm not saying they're without merit, I'm saying perspective is everything. We should be grateful for what we have. We all have plenty of food, warm homes, and we're all on here speaking and no secret police are breaking doors down because we are. That we have this means of communication is more than most of the world's population will ever even see. I love my country. It's my home. And I'm comfortable here. And happy.

[Tamara]

Tamara, no one is "putting a gun to my head."

Nonsense. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. This ain't a hat being passed; it's the threat of armed men throwing folks into the pokey that keeps the buckage flowing.

We are free to come and go from this country as we please.

Oh really? Shred your passport & citizen's travel pap... er, "drivers licens" and walk to the nearest border checkpoint. Let me know how far you get.

In light of that, our complaints about taxes seem pretty petty, don't they?

"In light of the fact that robbers murdered my neighbour and stole all he had, I really don't have anything to complain about since my mugger only took $50 and gave half of it to UNICEF."

But, quid pro quo.

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

If you feel the government is putting a "gun to your head", why don't you immigrate to another country?

...and go where? The most comfy prison is still a prison, no matter how many cable channels it has. (BTW, it would be "emigrate". Immigrate to, emigrate from...)

If I may ask, to what organization do you pay dues to and atend meetings of?

Er, why would a market anarchist "belong" to a political organization?


It is amazing to see someone defend a status quo that their own grandparents would find intolerably totalitarian.

[JohnBT]

Personally, I believe that if we reach the point that it is every man for himself - the total breakdown of the social order - it will last about 2 minutes before people start choosing up sides and helping each other out.

And that is the end of anarchy.

It's a dead...end.

John

[Tamara]

I think it's pretty droll that everyone uses "every man for himself" and "lack of social order" to describe anarchy.

Try this: The little street that wends into our little neighbourhood is maybe 1.5 lanes wide, with a really nasty blind curve on it. Everybody who lives on the street honks as they come to the curve. Nobody makes them. There's no sign to tell you to. There's no law to punish you if you don't. Yet we all do it. Why is that? Would it work better if we put up a sign and passed a law?

When a tree comes down across our little road, if you are the first one to come across it and own a chain saw, you clear it. If you don't own a chain saw, you go fetch one of the neighbours and help them clear it. Do we need to pass a tree-clearing law with jail time and armed enforcers to prevent violators, or is fear of looking like a jerk to your neighbours good enough?

[tyme]

I don't think anarchy fails from any lack of money for national/local defense.

You can get people to pay money willingly, either by dazzling them with BS for the Cause of the Month or through more clever means.

You disagree? One word: lottery. Multiple lotteries, actually. State, local, national lotteries. If there were enough lotteries, I think plenty of people would starve rather than miss an opportunity to get rich.

Bonus: smart people don't have to contribute any money.

[labgrade]

Was hoping to reply to another (& will when I can dig it up - lost the reply/post & it was a really decent point .... ), but suffice it enough for a current counter to ahadams' posits.

That you have been "around the block enough" is in no way expousing anything that has not already been done on the other side of the block, my man.

Many a folk, subscribing to the "Jeffersonian example" have already established an entire nation based on the principles of individual frredoms & that that the individual will & does choose the right thing to do over the base mean of what you'd assume folks to sub-base themselves to be.

Tsk, in your disabusement of how we can & do rise to the right thing most always.

How else was the rise of a Constititional Republic & the furtherance thereof? Not by chance, I'd bet, sir, but by force of will & that of an anarchistic attitude that decided we will never be ruled by anything other than our own moral code & force of will.

Anarchists decided the initial state of this country - & will still do so for the future. We have decided that we will be ruled by none other than own own moral code. Go read your history regards the founding of this country.

& that there are not a more slaughter on the highways is an indicative & possitive state of anarchism. Folk will in most cases do the right thing regards their own saftey. If they drove the posted speed limits in all cases, they would die by the thousandths - simply because most have no clue regards the base principles regards anything safety aspects - some call it physics. That some do disregard the speed limits for their own safety is possitively indicative. That they die, is purely indicative that most are idiots. Sorry, & I can't do a damned thing about it. They killed themselves. Some would call that democvracy.

& your ...

"that are confirmed statists."

God help us all!

"We would also be organizing the vast majority of folks who do NOT want to take all of the responsibility for themselves in support of the reconstituted state. That's what you need to understand."

Ditto. en emphasis

You must be kidding!

Statists & et pukes, sir (oviously uncapitalized throught to show a s pertinent disdainment ;) ), you & your ilk are what have caused the decline of what this country once was.

We used to have strength of character. Your example shows that we no longer do & would bow to a sticking a finger down our thoat & just heaving it up.

Thanks, but no thanks.

If I'm to retch on the finger-bone of a tyrant, I'd just as soon take a real good bite, hang on & tear the biggest chunk I can.



One of the things that anarchists and anarcholibertarians do not grasp is that there are a significant number of us folks who have been around the block more than once, and because of Yep, that's right, if for some reason the government were all vaporized tomorrow morning, by the day after tomorrow, we'd have formed committees and instituted the beginnings of another one.



You see you will never be allowed to do anything more than play your little mindgames (I'd use another word for it but Oleg would object) with yourselves. If you ever try to implement any of your fantasies (including the current 'state of jefferson' nonsense floating around in various circles) while the current state exists you will be stopped by force, and if the current state were to suddenly cease to exist (or cease to operate, which would be effectively the same thing) there are more than enough of us intent on reinstituting the state, that you will not prevent us from doing so...and again you will be stopped by force if neccessary.

Understand that neither we nor those who do not want to take full responsibility can be convinced otherwise...we are not open to any of your arguments.

Understand that we serve external absolute values, regardless of what you may or may not believe concerning the existance of such values.

Understand that there is no room for compromise.

Understand that there is no room for discussion.

Things would be a whole lot simpler if the folks in mental anarchic fantasy land simply understood all of the above.

labgrade's trirade/3/2 early enough ....

Lost the the whole theme of themes somehow/somewhere in this whole stupidity.

Beats me - & I bailed, leaving the conversation out there

Anarchism" has alwas been defined as anything a"ani-legal."

Totally BS!

Anarchism is properly defined as anything whch isnt spcifically codfiedas "legal."

Yada.

Spelling mistakes granted for a poor typist & an idiot, e- mail me.

[Chipper]

It was earlier suggested that the use of the word "anarchy" be dropped from this thread. Since that sound advice went unheeded, let's try a different idea...what anarchy is not.

Anarchy is NOT:
Lawlessness
Chaos
Wild-eyed, wire-haired, drooling morons pitching bombs
A Life-long Bacchanalia
The end of the World
The collapse of society
The opening shot of Armegeddon
An invitation to the world to invade this land
Replacing one tyrant 3000 miles away with 3000 tyrants one mile away
Freedom from personal responsibility or moral obligation

Anarchy DOES:
Eliminate all levels of imposed governments
Leaves the door open for all manner of contracts and agreements
Leave the door open for people who wish to participate in a structured government. If people wish to form a community where they are at, they are free to do so
Allow cleaning of the gene pool
Place greater responsibility on the individual for life, security, food, shelter and other necessities
Provide greater flexibility and a far more rapid means of executing justice
Free you from taxes and puts you in the drivers seat of deciding which services you pay for such as roads, security and other things that we have given over to the state.

Government in ALL of it's forms is nothing more than a product of your fear of my liberty. Law is nothing more than a crutch for the feeble-minded who are unable to think for themselves simply because they do not grasp the fundamental characteristics of human nature in all of it's good and evil. People rightly fear murder, theft, rape and kidnapping. They are moronic to think that law can control these evils. There is NOTHING that can control these evils. They do exist and they will occur. It is foolish to think that laws can offer protection as they are nothing more than codified ideas and ideals. Then on top of the foolishness of laws, more foolishness is added by thinking that others will provide for your protection. You are the only one who can provide your protection. All anyone else can do is to come and see what evil was perpetrated on you. Police, investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries are the clean-up crew. They can only go to work AFTER the crime has been committed. Their only task is to see that the law is upheld. This is what the nation-state provides for you, a janitorial service.

Then what of the good in people? Have we become so jaded, so cynical, so fearful of the liberties or crimes of others that we simply cannot even think that someone will interact with us without the use of force? This is the the thinking of cowards. You are beset by paranoia if you really believe that everyone is out to get you. I contend that this state of mind is brought about by the fact that government exists. This is the state of mind of rulers and dictators and tyrants. By their very acts of looting and plunder and murders of every sort you are conditioned to believe that this is the way of life for all people. You are simply imprisoned by your own irrational fear. A prison that you have built because of what is forced on you by a government of your own devising. A prison which you strengthen daily with new laws, more authority, more regulations which are all designed to protect you from what you fear most. Ha! You've managed to stick yourselves into the Incredible Shrinking Box. Then you whine about oppression and the loss of freedom, "Oooh, they're trying to take my guns, they've banned my assault weapons, they're teaching children to experiment with oral sex, the commies are protesting in the streets, we're not killing enough enemies..." Do you not reaize that your chains are forged by your own hands? Then a door is opened to you to shed those chains and to step out of the Incredible Shrinking Box and all you can scream is that you are afraid. Some even go so far as to threaten death to anyone who tries to destroy your box and break your chains . I guess when it is all said and done, you do deserve a state.

At this point, all a real American (you know, those who actually believe in the promise of America) can do is work and pray for this b@st@rdized version of America to collapse in on itself and we can then divide into our own regions and devise the life we would prefer to live, with or without a state.

Chipper

[Ian]

Hear hear, Chipper. Just when I was planning on making a comment, someone comes along and says it far better than I could have.

[JohnBT]

Tamara,

Your examples using the neighborhood road prove my point about people cooperating. There doesn't seem to be much anarchy in your neighborhood.

BTW, who built and maintains the road? The government or the homeowner's association?

John

[Thumper]

Color me confused. Is there a consensus among you pro-anarchists regarding a definition of anarchy?

1.) Is it less government or no government at all? I think most of us agree on the less government thing.

2.) Does your particular flavor of anarchy leave room for our Constitution as it was originally written?

I'm not arguing...I really want to know. Every time I try to pursue this utopian anarchy that some are describing here, I run into a Kitty Genovese, or a Hutu/Tutsi massacre, or a KKK.

[Tamara]

Your examples using the neighborhood road prove my point about people cooperating. There doesn't seem to be much anarchy in your neighborhood.

Actually "anarchy" is simply an ancient Greek word that means "without rulers"; it doesn't imply lack of cooperation, merely lack of coercion. There is no rule or law that says anyone has to honk at the curve or chop up downed trees, folks just cooperate on these things because it makes sense. There is no Neighbourhood Committe For Curve-Honking And Tree-Chopping with a schedule of fines and duties. Matter of fact, there's no neighbourhood committee for anything, yet stuff still gets done. (Oh, and the county-owned portion of the road ends up the hill someplace. It's easy to spot the transition, as the potholes don't get filled as fast up there... ;) )

[Thumper]

More questions:

3.) Are there any "rules?" What if the local, large, well-armed, Islamist organization decides to go out and waste some infidels?

4.) Is there a punitive function in this "consensual organization" for those who break the rules?

5.) If so, is it a sort of willy-nilly vigilante sort of deal, or is there some sort of structure?

[Tamara]

2.) Does your particular flavor of anarchy leave room for our Constitution as it was originally written?

I'd happily settle for that, as it offers the maximum opportunity for freedom as long as you Mind Your Own Business and Keep Your Hands To Yourself (the core of any sane legal code).

Understand that I am always speaking from a Best Of All Possible Worlds point of view, but that anything that moves us in that direction is a good thing. Could a free market anarchic society thrive? Probably. Will it happen in my lifetime? No, certainly not. The paradigm of "Nothing will get done if I don't tell people what to do" and "There oughtta be a law!" is too firmly entrenched in the human psyche.

But, I keep trying; hoping to at least offer a viewpoint for conversation. ;)

[Thumper]

It's good to hear that, at least, Tam. I was afraid I was going to be upbraided for my "indoctrinated, unthinking dedication to the system." ;)

To be frank, the only reason I'm keeping an open mind about this at all is that some members here that I respect seem to think anarchy might have merits.

I'm stuck at work today, so google and I have been having a hard look at anarchy. I have to say, most of the sites I've seen are either blatantly juvenile "fight the power" B.S. or advocating Communism thinly disguised as "Libertarian Socialism."

Quotes like these abound:

"A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because
the latter is based on domination and exploitation." :rolleyes:

Are there any anarchist sites you (or Lab or Chip or Ian) could refer me to as being representative of "your" brand of anarchism?

BTW...Chipperman, did you have a bodybuilder relative who worked for an intelligence agency in Germany during the late 80's? There are some parallels between your nickname and your location and someone I know.

[Tamara]

"Libertarian Socialism"?

Isn't that kinda like "Christian Satanism"? :confused:


I'll try and dig up some links here in a bit.

[Justin]

I think that the term 'anarchy' has been hopelessly abused beyond any sort of usefulness. Any time the term is brought up, it immediately conjures images of trenchcoat-wearing bomb throwers. Even if you say to someone 'I'm an anarchist' and then go on to explain the basics of anarcho-capitalism (ancap) they're still going to assume that you're talking about some sort of socialist bs. It results in such a visceral gut reaction in most folks that you can't get past the meme it conjures up.

It would probably be better off to use terms like the aforementioned propertarian- terms that are free of any misguided connections to communistic philosophies.

As far as I'm concerned, an anarcho-socialist state is an impossibility. (Like Tam said, isn't that a bit like Christian Satanism?)

However, there is one system that always exists, regardless of how much or how little government you have, regardless of how oppressive the current regime is, and one that doesn't involve everyone holding hands and singing about flowers and bunnies.

The Free Market.

[Thumper]

Justin, how do you answer Ayn Rand's views against anarcho-capitalism in "The Nature of Government."

(I was proud to see her concerns closely mirrored mine.)

[Justin]

ancap links:

The Ludwig Von Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org/)
Lew Rockwell's Site (http://www.lewrockwell.com/)
Antistate.com- Market Anarchism online (http://www.antistate.com)

[Justin]

Thumper-

I've read that essay, but it was awhile ago, and I've lent out my copy of 'The Virtue of Selfishness.' :(

If I had it here I could probably answer your question.

(Was this the one where her argument against privatized police boiled down to 'if you think it's bad with one set of cops, wait until there's a whole mess of police organizations running around.'?) <--Paraphrased greatly!

[Thumper]

Been to all the Lew Rockwellesque sites, Justin...None stand up to scrutiny.

They all tend to espouse individualism while ignoring the individualists' trait of self-worth. By product of self worth is pride. These proud individuals soon band together and the next thing you have is nationalism.

Nothing wrong with that, though, IMHO.

Let's say your anarcho-capitalist utopia is threatened by a strongly nationalist, well armed "real country." Are you gonna be able to drum up support for it's defense without that inherent, natural nationalism?

[Thumper]

(Was this the one where her argument against privatized police boiled down to 'if you think it's bad with one set of cops, wait until there's a whole mess of police organizations running around.'?) <--Paraphrased greatly!

That's it...but more to the point...she asks what happens without any objective legal code? Unfortunately, homo sapiens is subject to the slippery slope.

I'm no Rand cultist, but she's dead right about her views on moral objectivism.

[Sir Galahad]

Tamara, you can espouse whatever you want. But it's never going to happen. You will not find a majority of Americans, or even a significant minority to go along with your ideas. You know why? Because people are, for the most part, content. I am sure you can call them all sheep with guns to their heads, but, hey, whatever.

You seem to think because SOME people where you live work together that that applies to everyone in the country. So, then, your example follows in, say, South Central Los Angeles, and so forth? The bottom line is, people like having clean water, firefighters, etc., etc. without having to do those things for themselves. That is why we PAY to have those things. And the majority of Americans if asked about a revolution would say no to one. That's because they have seen what can happen in not only a civil war, a revolution, or "anarchy", but also can visualize what it would look like here. And you'll never convince the government to adopt an untried system that never advanced beyond dabblings.

On another note, I'm glad I quit passionately hating the government when I tore up my red card.


Now, in the past, there were some dabblings in non-government rule. The communards of Paris are somewhat of an example. Another was POUM during the Spanish Civil War. There were also significant numbers of anarchists during the October Revolution in Russia that launched the Soviet Union. Well, the communards are no more, POUM was squashed by Franco, and the Bolsheviks killed the Russian anarchists (along with the Mensheviks and other rival socialist factions.) That is the way of things. The Golden Rule of History is that: Those who have the weapons make the rules. A group of people all claiming to rule (but "not" rule at the same time) themselves will soon find themselves ruled by someone else. The Russian revolution is a prime example. Lots of anarchists and various socialist factions thought they'd be setting up communes and syndicates and living happily ever after. Lenin and the CHEKA had other ideas. And Lenin had the guns to back it up. The anarchists and rival socialists were shot mostly as "counter-revolutionaries" or "saboteurs". See how that works? Some of the people, in a confederation of various factions, help fight the revolution and then the stronger faction seizes control at the end and shoots the lesser factions. Sometimes using other factions to shoot other factions until one lesser faction is left and then the stronger faction shoots that one faction left at the end. You will find that in EVERY 20th century revolution since the advent of Marxism and anarcho-syndicalism. No matter what peoples' movement springs up, the strong come forth to seize it for their own ends. The American Revolution was an anomaly and, so, should not be discarded so lightly.

Now, in this country, what would likely happen is the Pentagon would seize control if people decided to "liberate" themselves. Who would stop them? Oh, the armed populace? So, then, you'd have armor and air support? Hopefully, right? So, then we get into a civil war. Charming. We can see the factions now: The white supremacists, the black militants, the Muslim extremists, the Hispanic militants, and so forth. And, sandiched in there somewhere, are your anarchists. And, then, like any civil war, there are a majority of people who just want to stay out of it and survive. Then after all the factions kill each other off and one rises to the top, in steps the military junta with the first American generalissimo to take control in his own "revolution". He shoots the surviving top faction and the majority of people whonever wanted the civil war in the first place are now relieved because someone is back in charge and running things again. And the majority informs generalissimo where all the survivng faction members are hiding (because guerillas depend on the people to sheler them, often by coercion or threats) and the secret police picks them those faction members and shoots them as "counter-revolutionaries" and the informers get an extra bread ration as a reward. Congratulations! You just handed the country over to a military dictatorship. Oh, but the members of the military wouldn't do that, would they? Of course they would. The leadership cadre would see the need to establish order. All militaries are like that. The rank-and-file would follow because they would want to be in a well-protected, heavily-armed military of tens of thousands for protection. And since a large portion of the military has family dependans living on military bases, that protection would extend to their families as well. So you might not be able to count on mass defections of military units as happened in the October Revolution. Oh, sure, you would seize some National Guard armories. But unless you had trained crews for your panzers, they're just sitting ducks for Apache Longbows anyway. That is why the American people will ever back a revolution. Things are nt ad enough to warrant that. And the American people will never back an untried system of government in times as precarious as these. So, unless you plan on seizing some National Guard armories, the revolution ain't happenin'. And if you do, you'll fail in the end anyway, because everyone will factionalize by race, religion, and creed and, so, will be easily dominated by the singe large military held together by discipline and order.

"Ya say ya wanna revolution, weeeelll, ya know....we'd all love to see the plan..."

[Tamara]

You seem to think because SOME people where you live work together that that applies to everyone in the country. So, then, your example follows in, say, South Central Los Angeles, and so forth?

Remind me again why I care about what happens in South Central Los Angeles? If they want to proclaim an emperor for life over their metropolis, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...

Additionally, I must have missed the part where I talked about shooting anybody. All I want to do is mind my own damn business (you know "Life, liberty, the puruit of et cetera"); freely associate with those I wish to associate with; pay my bills; cover my damages; and not be stolen from. Is there a problem with this?

(PS: TallPine's earlier suggestion about the occasional paragraph break is a good one... ;) )

[Thumper]

Remind me again why I care about what happens in South Central Los Angeles?

You KNOW why, Tam. Resources. Same reason the Emperor of Nashville would be trying to invade your mountaintop.

[Sir Galahad]

Thank you, Tamara, for showing EXACTLY why your system won't work! :D :D :D :D :D

[Thumper]

All I want to do is mind my own damn business (you know "Life, liberty, the puruit of et cetera"); freely associate with those I wish to associate with; pay my bills; cover my damages; and not be stolen from. Is there a problem with this?

Heck...I like that, too. But I know you're no wide eyed idealist. I think the predators and those incapable of self-control defeat the idea.

[Tamara]

Thank you, Tamara, for showing EXACTLY why your system won't work!

Well, at least we've reached manageable-length posts.

Obviously, we need to get to first principles, here.

In as few words as possible: Who owns you?

[Tamara]

I think the predators and those incapable of self-control defeat the idea.

I am presuming you CCW. Why?

[Thumper]

I am presuming you CCW. Why?

As you infer, for defense against predators.

Right now I have two mags on me and one in the gun.

Given the rest of the afternoon, I could assemble a Company strength outfit of well armed friends...about a platoon's worth would be true "shooters"-guys I know that can shoot in a military scenario.

Given a week...and plenty of proof that the Emperor of inner city Houston was coming to take Sugar Land, I "might" be able to organize 100 people to defend what is theirs. We wouldn't stand a chance.

Given a couple of months...well...I could hopefully organize a worthwhile defense. 'Course, now I have a rudimentary government and I've defeated the ideas of anarchy.

Thing is, when the Emperor comes, he ain't giving me a couple months' heads up...I'm gonna be stuck with the gun on me, the shotgun in the truck (unless I'm on my bike) and no friends.

[Tamara]

The Emperor of Houston is a pretty farfetched threat, given that most Mayors have a hard enough time passing a zoning ordinance with nobody shooting at them.

You would agree, however, that your defense is your responsibility, right? I mean, that is why you carry, nicht wahr?


(I'm not trying to be over-simplistic or condescending with this, I'm just building my argument from First Principles, trust me. ;) )

[Sir Galahad]

Tamara, who owns me? Well, under your system, the better armed I would presume. You know, owning a firearm does not make you 100% effective against other people who would ALSO have firearms and some might have even more than that. It's the bullet you don't see that kills you. You might be able to hold your own against maybe 1 to 5 attackers. What if they got hold of a tank? What if they decide to come back with 1,000 and make you the poster child for their "resistance is futile" campaign to make Bob the Plumber King Bob of Bobovia? That's exatly why you would have to care about what happens in South Central. Could be a riot. Or it could be the ascension to power of another Gengis Khan who decides to do his imitiation of Sherman's March to the Sea but with a medieval flavor. Except you would have no one to help you but you and perhaps a loose band of people who may or may not see a benefit in helping you. They may see a bigger benefit in joining the Khan.
Who owns me? I suppose if I say that "I" do, you'll say that I should be able to be the master of my own destiny in all things from not paying taxes to dancing naked in the town square. And, therefore, the government has no right to insist that I pay taxes or dance naked in my own home and not in public. And then if I defend the government in some fashion, then they "own" me. Is this not so?

[Tamara]

Tamara, who owns me? Well, under your system, the better armed I would presume.

That wasn't the question.

Who owns you?

[Sir Galahad]

Define "own".

[Thumper]

I'm not trying to be over-simplistic or condescending with this, I'm just building my argument from First Principles, trust me.

I realize that...and your argument logically follows. But I still see the "ruthlessness of the unjust" trumping your ace.

Unless you have a hidden ace.

[Thumper]

And, therefore, the government has no right to insist that I pay taxes or dance naked in my own home and not in public. And then if I defend the government in some fashion, then they "own" me. Is this not so?

Betcha a dollar that's not where she's going. ;)

[Thumper]

The Emperor of Houston is a pretty farfetched threat

Given your knowledge of world history, you have to admit that's not true. Doesn't such a figure invariably appear in the absence of structure?

I agree, however, with the premise that my defense is ultimately my responsibility.

Different tools for different threats though.

1911 for Jimmy Crackhead.

U.S.S. Ronald Reagan for errant despots.

I cheerfully pay for both.

[Sir Galahad]

The reason mayors have a hard time passing zoning ordinances is because they have to work within the existing political system. If they didn't, they could be turning the inner cities into a neo-Lodz Ghetto with walls, guards and dogs. In the absence of a political structure, might would make right. They don't have to worry about people shooting at them for passing zoning ordinances within this political system because we have laws that forbid that. In the absence of those laws, not only could people shoot at them, but they could shoot back. And since the mayors and governors have the keys to the National Guard armories, they'd be shooting back with some pretty impressive fowling pieces. Doesn't sound like something I'd want to live in. One need only read about where revolutions, juntas, and civil wars have led since 1917 to see that the strong prevail no matter how well armed the average citizen is. Citizens can own firearms, maybe a crew served weapon here and there. But things like tanks require an infrastructure and, ergo, a government. That's who has those weapons and that's who can build those weapons. That is why, ultimately, the military would take over, probably with the help of corporations that would need a strong government to survive. Just like Krupp played footsies with Hitler.

[Drakejake]

Anarchism is perhaps the most irrational of all the political theories. It falls as soon as you ask how disputes can be peacefully resolved without law and government.

On highways and streets there have to be rules of the road and enforcement of safety standards. Otherwise, no one could drive without fearing complete destruction. Roads would be demolition derbies. This is true whether streets are publicly or privately owned.

Anarchism is usually just a temporary period of unlimited violence followed by the imposition of a dictatorship. A complex industrial, scientific society cannot survive without laws, courts, and a single governmental system.

The basic problems in political theory include what is the purpose of government, what should be the limits on government's power, and how one can crreate an effective government that won't commit crimes that are much worse than those committed by the Mafia, for example. Our Constitution with our Bill of Rights is a flawed attempt to solve this problem, but it has been the most successful in human history. To phrase the issue a different way: how can you create an organization to protect people against theft without having that organization turn into a superthief? Governments, including our national government, steal more in a few years than all of the private criminals have stolen in the entire history of any nation. And government gets to keep all that it steals and is never punished for stealing authorized by law--legalized stealing.

Drakejake

[Chipper]

Drakejake,

Anarchism is perhaps the most irrational of all the political theories. It falls as soon as you ask how disputes can be peacefully resolved without law and government.

Well, what do you expect with a stacked question? One could very well ask how a federal republic would fare without a constitution. Except for those who at least understand the idea of anarchy the challenge of settling disputes is at least a discussable subject. For those stuck in their Incredible Shrinking Box of statist fantasy no other alternative can even exist. Contract is certainly a viable solution, free-market justice is certainly a viable solution but these strike fear in the hearts and minds of those who simply cannot see beyond the shrinking bounds already imposed on them.

On highways and streets there have to be rules of the road and enforcement of safety standards. Otherwise, no one could drive without fearing complete destruction. Roads would be demolition derbies. This is true whether streets are publicly or privately owned.

Americans drove for decades without half of the regulations in effect now. The Studebaker brothers gave us hydraulic brakes well over a half-century ago yet people still fail to use them correctly. Turn-signals were invented that long ago also yet people still fail to use them. Are you so fearful of anarchy that you think it's proponents have lost all good sense or any inkling of civility and process. Even anarchists must slow down to turn or use their brakes once they reach their destination. If these anarchists use good sense and practice safety they will signal to indicate their intention to turn in order to avoid an accident. Anarchists don't like destroying property or taking lives any more than they like having their property destroyed or having their lives taken.

According to what you wrote in the above quoted paragraph, it is clearly your fear of complete destruction which is being transfered to the driving habits of anarchists. This is irrational. You can get counseling to overcome this fear. I drive every day with democrats, communists, hindus, baptists, republicans, socialists and I'll tell you, they ALL drive like idiots. It's quite obvious to me that the statist laws and regulation that you rely on to alleviate your fear simply do not work.

Anarchism is usually just a temporary period of unlimited violence followed by the imposition of a dictatorship. A complex industrial, scientific society cannot survive without laws, courts, and a single governmental system.

You have nothing to base that observation on. The situation you describe is chaos, NOT anarchy. Can you offer any evidence to substantiate these incredible assertions?

The basic problems in political theory include what is the purpose of government, what should be the limits on government's power, and how one can crreate an effective government that won't commit crimes that are much worse than those committed by the Mafia, for example. Our Constitution with our Bill of Rights is a flawed attempt to solve this problem, but it has been the most successful in human history. To phrase the issue a different way: how can you create an organization to protect people against theft without having that organization turn into a superthief? Governments, including our national government, steal more in a few years than all of the private criminals have stolen in the entire history of any nation. And government gets to keep all that it steals and is never punished for stealing authorized by law--legalized stealing.


Political theory remains as suppositions concerning the interaction of humans with one another. Relationships involving governments are only one part of a much larger equation.

I am amazed at your excellent ability to correctly frame the problem in the above paragraph. Everything you said after "To phrase the issue a different way:" is wonderfully insightful in comparison to your previous paragraphs. Had you taken the contrast with the Mafia and turned it into an extended comparison, you would be much closer to understanding the nature of ALL governments. Anarchy, then, in contrast to any form of government makes far more sense.

In a more pragmatic vein (I'll turn off the rhetoric in support of anarchy for a moment) I'll be perfectly honest. I do NOT believe that anarchy will work in the United States. The reasons for this belief are many. The main one is first and foremost, fear. Americans simply fear not having any government. The thoght petrifies them to the very depths of their soul. The second reason is that anarchy requires a certain level of character with a deeply rooted sense of self and of independence. The third main reason is the timing. At this point in American society, the culture will simply not allow for any level of a sustainable anarchy. Americans are widely and deeply inured to the rhetoric of government and the daily doses of new fears touted in the media. We have politically and practically been made dependent as the pelicans on San Diego pier and other animals tended and weakened by their developed dependence on man.

Anarchy will, at this time, remain as an ideal or a standard against which all schemes of government structure may be judged. Why? Because once all of the fekal matter has been brushed aside what remains is the fact that governments are instituted by individuals for their own perceived benefit.

Nothing on this earth benefits people more than the retention and exercise of their freedoms and liberties. When governments are instituted, each individual that consents to that scheme of government cedes to that government some level of their individual sovereignty. From the moment of the establishment of that government people have less freedom and liberty than they did before that government existed.

If the institution of a scheme of government cannot be avoided then perhaps we need to think more carefully of how to frame that government. We do have millenia of error to draw from in order to frame a new a government.

It was the founders of this nation that gave us our first "constitution". It was known as the Articles of Confederation. Later, the framers gave us our current constitution. It was the proponents of the first constitution that gave us our Bill of Rights as a little check against the great centralizing authorities granted to government in the constitution. I call the Bill of Rights a little check simply because it was diluted in it's strength by the federalist forces led by Hamilton, Madison, Jay and others.

Even the Articles of Confederation were flawed but they contained the "spirit of America" that still lives on today in the desire for smaller government, little or no taxation, RKBA and other things which are near and dear to all of our hearts. Much more information and detail can be found on the whole of this topic at www.project-exodus.org

Simply stated, the current constitution cannot provide the government we are willing to accept. It was designed from the very outset to provide us with the government we have. This was consistently the argument of Patrick Henry and the rest of the anti-consolidationists (anti-federalists).

Today this "spirit of America" lives on in the anarcho-libertaians and other modern-day anti-federalists. You can find their writings at the link above, Lew Rockwell.com, The Mises Institute, the writings of Murray N. Rothbard and many, many others.

Despite our best efforts, America as a single nation under one flag will cease to exist. Politically, culturally and economically it will go the way of the Soviet Union, on to the ash heap of history. Various secession movements are alive and gaining strength. New attempts at old ideas such as the Free State Project,are gaining momentum. The long patterns of history indicate that we are near our time to fold. People of wealth are already leaving. The writing is on the wall.

The question we now face is, what will come afterward? Many will seek to resurrect what was lost. Unfortunately, it is an effort doomed to failure. Others will segregate and form socialist republics. Again, an effort doomed to failure. Other states will attempt variations on a theme of the prior government. Some may even join Canada. Others, such as Texas, Hawaii and Alaska may simply become independent countries.

In this milieu, an opportunity exists to achieve something better. Better, perhaps, even than the AoC. Because this is the current course of the nation, it would be wise to prepare and plan now for a government that would be more practical and better suited to the desires for government.

Political theory, as you think of it, is utterly devoid of ideas on a truly functional government. It is little more than a rehashing of all that has failed and an opportunity for experts to pontificate on those failures and devise new endeavors for the current state. A better proposition is found in the writings of anarchists, the AoC and the true founders, NOT framers of this nation.

Remember, your mama probably told you that "You can't say that you don't like it until you have at least tried it."

Chipper

[Thumper]

Chipperman...my opposition's not based on blind fear, just common sense.

I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but the anarchists don't seem to be able to answer even the most basic of questions.

Let's say, for instance, that Texas was suddenly your Anarchist Utopia. Self policing and everything's fine(huge assumption in itself.)

What would you do about the problems we'd have with Mexico? Obviously, they'd want our resources. Privatized army? Let's say that worked somehow...who's paying? Well, everybody but Earl down the road. Is someone gonna make Earl pay?

That's just one tiny example.

I have an open mind here...really. Convince me, if you feel inclined. I LOVE the idea of complete freedom.

[TallPine]

What would you do about the problems we'd have with Mexico?

Good question!

But ... what is being done about it right now?

Not much, that I can see, at least by the government.

Some private citizens are ready to "take the law into their own hands" - like Simcox, Ranch Rescue, etc.

[Sir Galahad]

Chipper, where are the success stories of anarchism? Can you show current nations that use this system and remain fairly civilized? Can you show past nations that were anarchistic? If anarchy is superior, why do we find government is a constant dating back to the first (and this is important) civilizations?

[Ian]

Who owns me? I suppose if I say that "I" do, you'll say that I should be able to be the master of my own destiny in all things from not paying taxes to dancing naked in the town square. And, therefore, the government has no right to insist that I pay taxes or dance naked in my own home and not in public. And then if I defend the government in some fashion, then they "own" me.

Working under the premise that you are the sole owner of your body (can anyone really argue against that on moral gorunds?), you are definitely free to dance in the street naked and so on. You are also completely free to submit to a government if you like. The key point of self-ownership if that no government may rightfully demand your subservience against your will. If you feel like voluntarily joining Mao's Magnificent Marxist Megapolis, you can do so without disgarding the idea of selfownership, because it was your choice to submit in the first place.

I think that in general people are overestimating the likelihood of invasion and underestimating the effectiveness of private defense. Some examples of very effective volunteer armies include our own Continentals, and the Boers.

Drakejake - Back home in Colorado, I know some people up in the mountains who live in neighborhoods accessed only by private roads. They aren't "demolition derbies" - I've never heard of a single collision on them. We have had private canals, turnpikes, bridges and railroads in this country, and they all worked just fine.

As for conflict resolution - personally, I've never had any need for any government agency or department to help me resolve a dispute. The last time I tried to interact with a government agency, it involved four separate ones all denying me the right to carry a pistol.

My parents have never needed such agencies either, even during their divorce. My mother runs her own small business, and she's never needed the government for any matter with her clients or products. All they do for her is make her charge sales tax (and income tax and property tax).

[twoblink]

You know what they say..

"Anarchy, it's better then no government!"

:D

[Justin]

Let's say your anarcho-capitalist utopia is threatened by a strongly nationalist, well armed "real country." Are you gonna be able to drum up support for it's defense without that inherent, natural nationalism? First up, lemme clear up a misconception. Anarcho-capitalism, propertarianism, whatever you want to call it is most assuredly not utopian. Even the most ardent free-market anarchists will tell you that even if their wildest dreams came true, the gov't dissolved, and everyone embraced the ideals of capitalism there would still be problems. You'd still have to go to work and make mortgage payments. There would be none of this lollygagging about waiting for a free handout business. You would succeed or fail based on your own merits. A system in which people are free to fail, and will, is not utopian.

Now, on to the threat of military force from outside. Believe it or not, this is a topic that has been debated nearly infinitely. From where I sit, there seem to be a couple of different ideas:
One would be based in the 2nd amendment ideals of the militia. (After all, if you have a country with no leader, who is going to surrender? You'd have to nuke the whole place into a shiny glass plate in order to declare victory.)

Another is the concept of the private or mercenary army. Essentially there would be an entity or company that would offer the services of national defense in exchange for a user fee. Free market in action.

Assuming that Ancapland has a number of companies with expensive facilities and/or resources, it is conceivable that they would raise their own private defense forces. The fact that you happen to live within the defendable area would be a windfall. (There's a technical econ term for this, but I can't recall it right now.)

Bear in mind that these are concepts that I've simply picked up from doing some general browsing. For further nitpicking, I'd suggest that you email the authors who have put forth such ideas. They are usually eager for input from different points of view who might have found something to make them re-examine their theories.

[Justin]

Chipper, where are the success stories of anarchism? Can you show current nations that use this system and remain fairly civilized? An invalid argument. Just because something hasn't been tried is not evidence that it will fail. Were we sitting around an ale house some time in the late 1600's debating the theory of people like Locke, you would have surly pointed out that Locke's theories were invalid because they were so obviously not being used anywhere.

Propertarianism is a new concept, developed within, oh just to put a number on it, the last 45-50 years.

This is what I find so fascinating about it, regardless of whether it'd work or not, it's the latest cutting edge in economic philosophy, and to a large extent, the better advocates of such a system remind me of the founding fathers to a certain extent; proposing ideas that are shocking, shocking to the average person.

Why, whoever heard of such a concept as representative democracy? Or proclaiming that our national leaders aren't guided by the hand of Providence?! Why, it's just not right to say that a leader is a fallible human being, and that the rabble should have a say in whether he continues to lead or not!:eek:

[Justin]

Mssr. Galahad said:I would much rather work within a system that has provided for the highest standard of living and freedom in the world for decades than throw out the baby with the bathwater for some untried "maybe" system. Um, I'm sorry, but the fed.gov is not responsible for the highest standard of living in the world. They didn't build the computer you're using, the gun on your hip, the car in your garage, or the cell-phone that is currently chirping Rachmaninoff in order to let you know you have an incoming call. In fact, it's very likely that the introduction of these products on the consumer market were delayed and their costs inflated because of the very organization you praise. I'd be hard pressed to come up with more than one product (interstate highways) that the fed.gov has dreamed up that has impacted the American standard of living in a positive way.

[Justin]

You know what the amusing thing is about this whole debate?





Warning: Plot Twist Ahead!
















I'm not even an anarchist. To be completely, openly, possibly embarrassingly honest about it, I have my own doubts about how teneable such a system would be. But for God's sake, at least I don't just simply sit around and spout all the same hackneyed clichés about it. I actually took the time to go find out more about it from the people who are sitting down and proposing ideas on how to deal with individual and societal issues within a stateless system.

[tyme]

(justin) I'd be hard pressed to come up with more than one product (interstate highways) that the fed.gov has dreamed up that has impacted the American standard of living in a positive way.Railroads. Nuclear weapons. Some of the coolest military technology on Earth. USPS. Didn't the gov't also subsidize air travel way back when?

And then there are the non-infrastructure stuff they've created or funded. NASA. Massive investment in digital circuitry in the second half of the 20th century.

Just about any major branch of research has been supported to some degree by the government. Just because corporations generally get stomped on doesn't mean the government has nothing to its name besides highways. How many things do we have today because of technology at least partially advanced by a government lab?

Lots of technological progress is supported by the government. Software (SEI, etc.), the human genome (was it NIH?)...

Should I go on?

[Chipper]

Thumper,

I'm glad that you brought this up:
What would you do about the problems we'd have with Mexico? Obviously, they'd want our resources. Privatized army? Let's say that worked somehow...who's paying? Well, everybody but Earl down the road. Is someone gonna make Earl pay?


You postulated your query on Texas being an "Anarchist Utopia". Utopia is an unnecessary characterization. The godless equivalent of heaven. That obviously can not be brought about by the hand of man or even the best of his imagination.

As far as Texas being an Anachist land, I do not foresee the same difficulties that you do. Mexicans would be welcomed, traded with, integrated into the land. Criminal behavior would be dealt with appropriately. There would be no welfare or other systems of support for the lazy or useless. Yes, charitible organizations would exist and they may attempt to help out those seeking refuge but by their own rules I doubt seriously that a permanant group of dependents would come of it.

As to wanting our resources, wanting does not equate with taking. Attempts at theft or the the use of force to take property would be dealt with appropriately. If the aggregate force of Texas is inadequate for their defense, then they will get annexed by Mexico. A fairly harsh reality, eh?

In anarchy, the individual shoulders ALL of the responsibility for his security of person and of his property. The situation you conjure for the land of Texas would also be applicable to all lands that border Mexico.

A privatized army? Well obviously, whoever owns it pays for it. What does Earl down the road have to do with it? If it is truly anarchy, there is no government. If an army existed, it would have to be paid for by the person or persons who contracted for the army's services.

The typical concept of privatization today is based on the existence of a government which turns over the administration and support of one of it's so-called "services" to the private sector. Without a government, this simply cannot happen. The so-called service is provided and paid for by the private sector already since no government exists.

Chipper

[Chipper]

Sir Gallahad,

Chipper, where are the success stories of anarchism? Can you show current nations that use this system and remain fairly civilized? Can you show past nations that were anarchistic? If anarchy is superior, why do we find government is a constant dating back to the first (and this is important) civilizations?


__________________
Dragons dispatched cheaply.


First off, I like your sig line! However, I might suggest that you place a higher value on your service. Perhaps, Dragons dispatched quickly.

As to the success stories of anarchism, I counter by asking where are the success stories of the state? Though they don't change as often as I change my socks, my socks don't seem to cause endless murder, death, looting, plundering or annhilation by other states. They were accused once of causing widespread panic but, the accusation was found to be baseless.

Your intimations of any association with anarchy being prone to violence are a good ploy in weighting your questions in favor of the state. Surely you realize that civilization is what gave rise to the state. Also, within that so-called civilization, the violence you fear was canonized and monopolized by the the state as a means to keep people in compliance with it's dikta.

Prior to the existence of the state, there were families, tribes and clans. These familial relations were usually headed or directed by an elder or group of elders. As they prospered and were successful in the provision of defense against those they called enemies, they became revered as kings and councils. This is a pattern that we have never really strayed from. Today we have presidents and parliaments.

There is no problem with the design per se. The problem lies in the grants of authority to these designs and the monopoly on the use of force to gain compliance and adherence to that authority. No man has the right, duty or obligation to force you to comply with what you do not wish to do. His position and status within the family, tribe, clan or state may be greater than yours but, he is, nonetheless, a man. As such, any use of force against you outside of what could be reasonably termed as defense of self or property, is simply unacceptable.

No matter method is employed to organize society, when the importance of the individuals is diregarded in favor of those who appear to rule, that society and any government structures it may have will collapse or be overtaken by an other. It could be stated that the history of the state is a record and a testimony of the effects of apotheosizing men or in the least placing one or a few over the lives of all. In all cases it has ended in failure.

Chipper

[Chipper]

Justin,

Give this man a dollar! You have at least made the effort to give anarchy an honest look. Kudos to you! I may not wholly agree with your conclusion but you at least applied your mind to the possibilities. Nothing greater could be asked of anyone when it comes to the realm of ideas and solutions to problems. If there was a big thumbsup smilie here I would post it for you. Great stuff!

Chipper

[Chipper]

Tyme,

In response to Justin you posted the following:

(justin) I'd be hard pressed to come up with more than one product (interstate highways) that the fed.gov has dreamed up that has impacted the American standard of living in a positive way.

[quote]Railroads. Nuclear weapons. Some of the coolest military technology on Earth. USPS. Didn't the gov't also subsidize air travel way back when?

Railroads were a product of the free-market. Nuclear weapons? Well, I suppose. Assuming you enjoy vaporizing humans and you enjoy annhilation, wasting and destruction over life. Military technology? Is it the big bang thing or are you simply thrilled with new and innovative ways of killing? USPS? Would be and is handled much better by the free-market. UPS, RPS, FedEx, etc. Yes the government did subsidize air-travel for the purpose of newer and better ways to spread dath and destruction. They have since co-opted the entire industry.

And then there are the non-infrastructure stuff they've created or funded. NASA. Massive investment in digital circuitry in the second half of the 20th century.

NASA? Funded to prove superiority over communism. Massive investment in digital circuitry? Yes, as evidenced by NASA scouring ebay for antiquated 8086 and 8088 processors to help keep the shuttles flying.

Just about any major branch of research has been supported to some degree by the government. Just because corporations generally get stomped on doesn't mean the government has nothing to its name besides highways. How many things do we have today because of technology at least partially advanced by a government lab?

How many more and better technologies would we have today if government had kept it's nose out of the market? Government funding (our money) means government control.

Lots of technological progress is supported by the government. Software (SEI, etc.), the human genome (was it NIH?)...

It was the free-market outfit that beat the government outfit in decoding the human genome. Most all software and all of the codes to write programs have come from the private sector.

Should I go on?

No. Please. We have a very good grasp on your penchant for fiction.

Chipper

[Chris Rhines]

Anarchism is a philosophical system, and although it's very old it is still being rewritten and redefined, perhaps more so than any other philosophical or praxilogical system. I'm going to attempt to clear up a couple of the common misconceptions on the subject.

First off, you have to be very careful searching for information on anarchism on the internet. As Thumper discovered, many (most?) of the common anarchist information sites are blatantly socialist. Anarchism is NOT inherently socialist, it merely suffers from an unfortunate early association with Prodhoun and similar wastes of skin, and from a present assoication with teenage idiots in black bandannas and RATM t-shirts. Just because you call yourself an anarchist doesn't make you one.

What the readers of this thread may be more interested in is called Anarcho-Capitalism, Market Anarchy, or Individualist Anarchy. It's a combination of the lack of coercive government with the existence of an unregulated economic market. The two go together pretty well.

Anarchism has three main core premises tied up in its epistimology.

- Self-Ownership and Self-Rule. You are a human being, and as such you have sole dominion over your body, your mind, and the fruits thereof. Therefor, no one else can ethically excercise control over you unless you give your consent.

- Non-Agression. It is unethical to agress against other individuals or their property. Murder, assault, kidnapping, rape, theft, and fraud, all are forms of agression. Note that this principle does not restrict the use of force in self-defense or defense of property, nor does it make any statement as to reasonable force.

- Unanamous Consent. This one is important. It states that if a person wishes to enforce a regulation of some kind over a group of people, every single person affected by such regulation must positively agree to it, or else the rule is invalid in total.

If you beleive in these three concepts, then you're probably a libertarian of some sort. If you apply them to your environment is a consistent fashion, then you're probably an anarchist (even if you don't know it.)

On the topic of legal and civil arbitration - enacting a government to serve as an arbitration firm (the "legal" system and the "criminal justice" system) is the worst possible solution to the need for a system of arbitration. A better solution is a for-profit judical system, in which the arbitrating body is agreed upon by both parties. For-profit arbitration services would then have a signifigant motivation to provide quick, fair, well-authored rulings, since a service with a reputation for dishonesty would find itself without clients. There are other free-market possibilities for settling disputes, ranging from credit and character assessments to a formal dueling system. One could freely choose the system that best fits their needs, rather then reply on a corrupt, bloated, national monopoly.

On defense - Private defense services exist even today, and are by all accounts quite competent. Since in a free-market society the defense of your own property falls to you, you are free to make whatever arangements you deisre to secure your own property. Public property? It wouldn't exist in a market anarchy. All property is either privately owned or is an unclaimed property subject to homesteading.

On human evil - It exists. It will exist with or without government (government, in fact, gives evil people a handy place to congregate, since government is an inherently evil institution) The fact that some small minority of people are blachhearted bastiches that prey on their kin is no reason at all to treat the entire would as such.

I'll close with a somewhat (but not very) tounge-in-cheek post from a fairly well-known AnCap columnist. Hey, I like it!

Jules Varwig's Ultimate Guide to Anarchy

Q- Isn’t anarchy chaos or won’t chaos be the inevitable result of no government?
A- No.

Q- How do anarchists propose taking care of the less fortunate individuals in society?
A- We don’t.

Q- What about police? If a burglar breaks in my house- who will protect me?
A- Colonel Colt.

Q- That sounds fine in theory but suppose the burglar is also armed and is a better shot than me?
A- Then you die.

Q- Just like that, huh? So who would be responsible to care for my family in that event?
A- Themselves.

Q- I still can’t believe you so coldly said I would die. Where do you get things like that from?
A- Reality.

Q- Don’t I have a right to a little more protection than that?
A- Yes.

Q- Ahh...now we’re getting somewhere. So who will fulfill my right in this regard?
A- You.

Q- How’s that?
A- Hire a guard.

Q- What if I don’t want to hire a guard but still wish to have my rights?
A- Practice more with your gun.

Q- It appears that without a government, I will have to do things for myself or else hire them done.
A- Just like now.

Q- So what’s the difference?
A- No government.

Q- So what’s the advantage to that?
A- You’re in charge.

:D

- Chris

[Ian]

Tyme - As a student in aeronautical engineering, I can assure you that NASA is an astonishingly inefficient and wasteful agency that does far more to effectively prevent space travel than it does to support it.

As for nuclear weapons...well, what do you expect? Give a government the knowledge of atom-splitting, and they build bombs of armageddon-like proportions while regulating the industry so much that our best available source of electrical power is nearly stillborn.

And military weapons? The government doesn't design weapons, it simply buys things that are produced by private industry. Only after they regulate the industry half to death do we get truly government-inspired weapons, like the OICW.