[Jim March]

Anybody who throws the term "anarchist" around as a slur has no clue what the heck they're talking about.

There are two completely different strains of "anarchist":

"Left wing Anarchism" also known as "Anarcho-Socialism" or "A-S": these were the classic late-19th-century "bomb throwers" although in reality, that was highly exaggerated. In the US, A-S types were often Europeans and there was considerable hysteria in the US over these "foreign radicals". But anyways, point is they distrust private business and property rights AND the gov't, they're a strain of "collectivist".

A-S is more or less dead as an organized political school of thought, 'cept for a few loonies like ALF and some idiots sleeping on the streets in rags and too many safety pins.

Anarcho-Capitalists, or A-C: there's almost certainly a lot of 'em right here on THR. They don't throw bombs, never will. A-Cers are related to Objectivist (Ayn Rand) schools of thought and the radical Libertarianism of L Neil Smith and company. I'm more of a radical libertarian myself, but am on one A-C mailing list because Mike Shneider and Billy Beck put out some good stuff at times.

Like l/Libertarians, A-Cers believe in the "Non-Aggression Principle", the sanctity of private property rights and contracts.

The NAP states that the ONLY crime is to "initiate force" against another, or to hire somebody to do it for you. Examples include theft, fraud, assault, rape, murder, etc.

Anything else can be dealt with as part of contract law or tort law, in "civil court" or it's equivelent. As an example, if a road is privately owned, you enter into a contract to use it and if that includes a speed limit, well, don't violate the contract or it could cost you.

Now in practice, that doesn't sound any different than what we've got now for traffic laws, except that with gov't monopoly out of the way, there's room for *competition*. If you have a choice between roads, one of which has been set up to be safe at 100mph and the other cheaper but safe at 60mph, well, take your pick.

In all cases, just the fact that you've got a group together doesn't give you any more "rights" than you'd have as an individual. As an individual, you cannot morally decide you've got access to my wallet. But at present, get together enough "voters" and y'all can "vote yourself access to my wallet", especially if I'm in a high enough tax bracket :scrutiny:.

As a practical matter, a "radical libertarian" thinks that if you strip gov't down to bare essentials and all it does is deal with "initiations of force" between citizens, then it can exist without taxes other than maybe very small import duties or some other "non-forced user fee".

A-Cers want to ditch gov't altogether and resolve disputes purely in "courts for hire" (what we call "private arbitrators" in the US today). But about the only "criminal activity" they believe in to get there is tax protest :cool:. (Which you can quite strongly argue isn't even illegal, but that's another subject for another day.)

[BigG]

So, I was right. Other than the classic bombthrowers of the early twentieth century, the term is meaningless (other than a pipe dream of poliscientists).

[Zander]

What if you don't do it by throwing bombs but believe that it's OK to destroy other people's property as a political statement?

[BigG]

I would say a criminal. After I wrote my first reply I realized that l/Libertarian can also be defined by the lack of real world examples as a poliscientists pipe dream. :D

[Ian]

For quite some time, powered flight was a loony pipe dream too. No reason not to work on improving one's life.

[Tamara]

What if you don't do it by throwing bombs but believe that it's OK to destroy other people's property as a political statement?

Then someone is obviously unaware that two of the supreme virtues are to Mind One's Own Business and Keep One's Hands To One's Self. I haven't needed an outside authority to force me to do that since kindergarten. Some people, of course, never learned that lesson, so I carry a gun. ;)

[Jim March]

Anybody destroying property in support of "anarchism" is either a geniune late-19th/early-20th century throwback to A-S or much more likely, is simply a destructive idiot feeding off of a term he/she/it thinks is a "philosophical framework" for said destruction.

A-Cers flat-out don't do that...it would be an exceptional vandal indeed who even knew about A-Cism.

Under A-C theory, the only property that could be morally destroyed was what was used to initiate force against me personally. Some joker pulls a Pakistani folding knife on me and then drops it when he sees my piece come out to play, I'm quite likely to jam his blade in the nearest sidewalk crack and snap it. If it's any good, I might keep it unless I suspect it's got somebody else's blood on it or something...if I think it's evidence and am concerned enough to involve cops, fine, otherwise it's going for a swim off the nearest bridge. Whatever. Point is, it's mine now ;).

Applying that to a car lot which sells SUVs is ridiculous and I know of no A-Cer or Radical-l/Libertarian who'd do so. Both types value property rights far too highly to take that step. To these "free market anarchists" (another term for "A-Cer"), everything in the world (actually, *universe*) except people is either property or hasn't been claimed as property by an intelligent being yet. That includes animals as property, unless we ever prove a critter is actually intelligent.

So if a case can be made that driving an SUV harms the environment, under A-C the proper available cure is to sue for damages, either to your own health (pollution) or to harm for your property (say, the plants you grow on your farm. Yes, this could be a class action suit of some sort.) And in my view, that's one area that A-C theory is weak on...I think there IS a role for pollution laws, within reason.

[Sir Galahad]

Jim, take this from a ex-Wobbly. You are incorrect in your term "anarcho-socialist". They were anarcho-syndicalists. A whole different philosophy from the socialists (see also the expulsion of Daniel DeLeon by the "Overalls Brigade" in 1905 and the subsequent creation of the IWW.) Anarcho-syndicalists were strong and organized up until 1917 when the government used espionage laws to arrest them (and "exile" some such as "Big Bill" Haywood.) Most of them were not "foreigners", either. "Big Bill" Haywood was a leader of the Western Federation of Miners in the western U.S. for years before the IWW came into being. And the IWW was responsible for several major textile industry strikes during the 19teens. They were enough of a threat to be deported en masse from both Jerome and Bisbee, Arizona. (See "Bisbee Deportation.)

While the anarcho-syndicalists ave been dormant for many years, they have enjoyed a resurgance since 1995. Most of the anti-war demostrations recently have been organized by them. To want to dispel the taint of the word "anarchist", you'll have to re-write history. Otherwise, find another name for your belief doctrine. Because just as the swastika means more than nazism, anarchy means more than what you wish it to mean and what you wish it not to mean.

[Tamara]

...take this from a ex-Wobbly.

I don't care if you're an ex-Knight Of The Round Table, words have meanings.

An- "without", archos- "governance".

If someone needs men in black with big guns to make sure they Mind Their Own Business and Keep Their Hands To Themselves, I pity them. I'm sure these people exist; that is why I own guns.

It all boils down to this, Galahad (may I call you Galahad? I'm not real big on honorifics...): Can you govern yourself, or do you need to be governed?

[Jim March]

Umm...OK, instead of giving details of what they did NOT believe, why not thumbnail-sketch what they do?

I can believe I got the A-S part wrong as I'm not much interested in 'em. I do have the A-C part right.

[BigG]

Cue Woody Guthrie album "This land is your land... "

[Ian]

"We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--" :)

Sir Galahad does have a point - the word "anarchist" generally has a pretty powerful negative connotation for people, and the fact that it has a precise definition doesn't make much of a difference. As a result, I tend to identify myself as an "anarchist" only around people who understand what I'm talking about. In general company, I describe myself as a "libertarian" or "free-market capitalist" or "laissez-faire capitalist."

[2nd Amendment]

Minarchist. I was branded that a few years ago on Townhall and I kinda like it. Usually gets the point across to the uninformed, minus most of the baggage.

[Sir Galahad]

Actually, Tamara, I quit playing Don Quixote when I quit the IWW. I have better things to do than sit around and hate the government. Yes, words/symbols do have meanings. Case in point: The swastika is/was a sacred symbol among some Hindus, Native Americans, and Eastern religions. Thanks to the nazis, it now means something ugly. No, that doesn't alter its original meaning, but it cannot be helped because of the horrific things that happened under some people who perverted that symbol. So, you can call it whatever you want, but you're shooting yourselves in the foot by using the term "anarchy".

Still, I wager that the number of "anarcho-capitalists" number somewhere around 2,000 perhaps. The IWW still has you outnumbered by several thousand, so the common usage of "anarchy" is still the correct one in most folks eyes when they go looking for real anarchists to join. Though "anarcho-capitalism" sounds suspiciously like the ideas of some Wobs I knew who were having a hard time reconciling the IWWs hate of capitalism with their own personal wealth and fortunes, but still hated the government. That's how lots of "spinoff" ideology starts.

[Chris Rhines]

Jim -

That was brilliant. Really, really brilliant. You have my thanks.

'Anarchy' is a term that does have negative connotations. That's not necessaraly a reason to stop using it. Aside, I have a lot of trouble taking ansocs seriously. Calling for no government, but advocating central economic planning at the same time? Seems like a contradiction to me. Perhaps I've been spending too much time in the ASC newbie forum... :D

'Radical libertarian' might be a useful term, it kinda gets the point across without all the bomb-thrower baggage.

- Chris

[ahadams]

Although a lot of folks may have problems with this one:

Given that the human race is inherently sinful and fallent in nature [this is one of the standard underlying premises of mainstream/conservative Christianity] and given that because of this at least some governmental activity is required in the affairs of large groups of human beings in order to insure that societies may function without undue disruption or coercion (which is also demonstrated conclusively throughout recorded history); THEN it is obvious that anarchy is merely any attempt to, if you will, increase social entropy at the expense of the majority of the humans present. The question then is not whether anarchy exists, but rather at what point does it move from becoming a perceived counterbalance to the fascist-socialist tendencies of elitist groups, into doing as much damage in the other direction as either fascists or socialists do in theirs?

now I'll just go dig out my flame retardant long underwear...

[Tamara]

Cue Woody Guthrie album "This land is your land... "

Really?

I learned it as:

"This land ain't your land,
This land is my land,
From California
To the New York island.
I've got a shotgun,
And you ain't got one.
I'll blow your head off
If you don't get off.
This land is private property." :D

Woodie was a pinko comsymp pansie. I knew that in first grade. :cool:

[Tamara]

Given that the human race is inherently sinful and fallent in nature
Why should we take that as a given? Define "sinful" and "fallen"? "Sinful" according to whom? "Fallen" from what?
[this is one of the standard underlying premises of mainstream/conservative Christianity]It is one of the underlying premises of some worldviews that the world is suspended on the back of a giant tortoise. Shall we take that as a "given" instead? and given that because of this at least some governmental activity is required in the affairs of large groups of human beings in order to insure that societies may function without undue disruption or coercion Governments function by undue disruption and coercion.

[Thumper]

Seems like we just discussed all this, didn't we?

I have to admit, the whole anarcho-capitalist thing sounds really attractive to me, but history tells me it wouldn't last too long.

Just because some loosely organized group disavowes hyper-organization (government) doesn't mean everyone else will. Those nearby organized .govs will eventually get your stuff, even if Genghis Khan, the local KKK, or some nutcase religous movement doesn't.

[tyme]

Thumper, you know what history tells me? It tells me that the U.S. government won't last forever. :)

[Thumper]

You're right, Tyme...but it also tells you another one will be along pretty quickly.

What if the Gov were gone tomorrow? Wonder if the new regime would include a BOR to trample.

Ever visited an area of the world where the local government has given way to factions? I have. It ain't fun...even for the guys with the AKs.

Limited government is the way...Just like those Dead White Guys wrote into that magnificent document.

[Jim March]

All three related schools of thought (Objectivists, Radical Libs and A-Cers) believe that if you treat people with respect, honor their rights BUT force 'em to work for a living and in general treat them as adults, they'll act in that fashion. And such increased personal freedom will lead ultimately to a "culture of personal responsibility".

The reverse is also true. Treat people like dirt, strip them of their rights while at the same time providing for their basic needs for free, and you get EXACTLY the behavior seen in a typical inner-city housing project.

Follow? Take any group of people who MUST see to their own survival or flat-out die, and a very high percentage will act as responsible adults. Especially by around the 2nd or 3rd generation.

Three or four generations of exactly the opposite will produce...well hell, go walk through a Chicago Federal housing project at night if you want to learn the results.

I hope you survive the lesson.

Ask yourself why a working farming community has FAR less criminals than an urban housing project with 90% welfare rates? Seriously. It's not a small difference, it's friggin' *enormous*. Why? The difference is either racial (which I thoroughly discount) or it's about something damaging the *culture*. Gee, wonder what's doing the damage? *Everything* doing the harm can be linked back to the government: the welfare, the gun control, the criminal justice system, the "drug wars" pumping in enormous profit for criminal activity, ALL of it.

----------------------------

One of the reasons I'm a "minimal gov't type" versus zero gov't is that I believe the "megacorps" could easily act in just as dictatorial a fashion as any current government, if given the chance. I would refer y'all to the well-documented behavior of any of the 19th century railroad barons or most major industrialists of the period for examples. Bill Gates in particular has probably as much inherent potential for evil as half the Generalisimos of the 3rd world :rolleyes:.

In some ways, A-C's mistake is similar to the mistakes the Founding Fathers made setting up the US. They set it up so that state-level abuses of power weren't immediately correctable; they started out worried about potential Fed abuses but it was the states that turned tyrant first.

Checks and balances.

You get a guy like Bill Gates, he's got enough money to equal a LOT of power, so no one ordinary individual can stand up to that power alone. "Collective power" isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as none of the actions taken by the collective would be immoral for an individual to do!

Example: if 30 people attack you with guns, it's moral for you to defend yourself. It's also moral for you to go screaming to the cops under the current system, to avail yourself of the "collective power" thus available. And probably better tactics :p.

It is NOT moral for you to make up false charges so that you can use the available "collective power" to initiate force. It's not moral for the societal collective to decide they want access to somebody's wallet, or otherwise restrict their basic human rights (example: via gun control).

Call it "collective defense" versus "collective offense". Only one is a bad thing.

But this isn't a condemnation of the morals of A-Cers such as Tamara. I respect them, I agree with 90% of their beliefs and can peacefully disagree with the rest :cool:.

[Jim March]

Ronnie, just saw your last post.

The problem the A-Cers face is the "startup" - to run an A-C society, you need people who've been treated as adults and hence act like it. See my last post above. Such folk are today too damned uncommon to allow an A-C society to exist.

Which is why Radical Libs want to scale back gov't, and we know it'll have to happen slowly. With luck, by the time we've gotten to a point where we're "95% of the way to full-on A-C" (due to the shrinkage of gov't) the population will be mostly ready for that.

Radical Libs and A-Cers believe humans of all races CAN rise above the cultural levels seen in the inner cities. It's not abnormal at all for human societies to be thus advanced.

All ya gotta do is get gov't the hell outta the way!

[Thumper]

I applaud your optimism Jim...but I don't think we've yet evolved above predators.
It's not abnormal at all for human societies to be thus advanced.

In my own experience, it's very abnormal. There will always be the occasional charismatic, wealthy predator who will look at your enlightened (and loosely organized) A-C society as meat.

BTW...I tried your kydex holster design. Works like a charm. My compliments.

[Jim March]

Thumper: the level of criminality in America's inner cities is grossly abnormal. That's what I meant, I realize I didn't make that clear.

Your average American small town's population is ready for a minimalist government, at the very least.

Governments of the overwhelming size and complexity and "noses poked everywhere-ness" of the present USofA are highly unusual across human history.

----------------

Re: the holster: are you talking about one of the four I made at Counterattack, or one you brewed up? It's cool either way, if the latter I'd like to see pics just out of curiosity :).

[Thumper]

Your average American small town's population is ready for a minimalist government, at the very least.

I agree. Thing is small towns tend to get larger...and tend to develop larger towns problems. I believe gov't alleviates some of those ills and exacerbates others.

Governments of the overwhelming size and complexity and "noses poked everywhere-ness" of the present USofA are highly unusual across human history.

I think that's a function of both it's overwhelming wealth and new levels of technology. Just have to fight it as best we can.

I broke the LCD on my digicam...buying another this week so I'll send pics of my holster...

[Jim March]

I don't think cities alone are the culprit. Something else is going on. Granted, cities *attract* predators but in part that's because they've mostly victim disarmament zones (Chicago, DC, NYC, SF, LA...).

Ever seen what Joyce Malcolm has been writing about crime rates in London circa 1870 - 1900? When they had more or less no gun control whatsoever, pocket revolvers were common as fleas and the level of gov't control was quite low?

----

Re: the holster: again, just curious, but are we talking about one you made? And for what gun? Again, it won't piss me off if that's the case, I published the designs fair'n'square :) and it's not like the concepts weren't already floating around...

[Thumper]

Made the initial rig for a P99...I like tuckable stuff but leather is too thick. And I didn't completely thief your design...you just motivated me to get out there and order some kydex for experimentation. Got LOTS of homeade kydex stuff now.

And I agree with you on the armed vs. unarmed society thing.

I just think that well-organized predators trump loosely organized "anarchists."

I'm all for live and let live, but that doesn't mean that Idi Amin is. IIRC, your girl Ayn also had some serious problems with A-C.

[BigG]

Your average American small town's population is ready for a minimalist government, at the very least.


What about the golden rule? Them that's got the gold make the rules? Most small towns got a boss like Boss Hogg on The Dukes of Hazzard.

Another Woody Guthrie selection for our pinko friends: "I been doin some hard travellin. I thought you knowed..." :D

[tyme]

How about a case study? :D The government is dissolved tomorrow.

Jane Doe goes to an abortion clinic to get an 3rd-term abortion - she's due in 6 weeks. John Doe (no relation) thinks this is murder, and there's no longer any state-imposed notion of "right" and "wrong" to get in the way. Now it just so happens that in addition to the "abortion = murder and sin" sign John is carrying, he also has a glock. So do the 100 other people just like John who are carrying similar signs. Jane Doe approaches the clinic.

What happens?

[Chipper]

BigG,
What about the golden rule? Them that's got the gold make the rules? Most small towns got a boss like Boss Hogg on The Dukes of Hazzard.


And how is this different than what we have now? It's just that under the current scheme of government, "Them that's got the gold [and] make the rules" have lots of help from your government, well-armed with your money which is not too shy about enforcing your compliance with the rules. Eliminating the government factor would jack up the cost to many petty tyrants which would, in turn, thin out the field. Also, since petty tyrants like the role of aggressor, A-C'ers can invoke the right of self-defense. Amazingly, it has been discovered that even rich thugs die as easily as common thugs.

Tyme,

How about a case study? The government is dissolved tomorrow.

Jane Doe goes to an abortion clinic to get an 3rd-term abortion - she's due in 6 weeks. John Doe (no relation) thinks this is murder, and there's no longer any state-imposed notion of "right" and "wrong" to get in the way. Now it just so happens that in addition to the "abortion = murder and sin" sign John is carrying, he also has a glock. So do the 100 other people just like John who are carrying similar signs. Jane Doe approaches the clinic.

What happens?

Most likely a small death and violence will occur. Regardless of what John's opinions of abortion are, John simply have no right to impose by force his morality on another person. Stop Jane? Yes, John could very easily do this. Jane could also come back with 200 hundred people to insure her free passage. Jane could also schedule her abortion for a more convenient time. Convenient that is, in avoiding John and his band of thugs.

Maybe the doctor will just start shooting protestors as trespassers on his property. This could happen for two reasons: 1) no government = no public property = no sidewalk or roadway to stage a protest or a blockade
2) by your interference with his commerce you are commiting a form of theft a clear violation of property rights since John would have to stage his protest or blockade on private property

So now, John and his merry band of thugs are caught in the crossfire between Jane and the doctor. Or, more realistically, the doctor and his security agents probably have the area cleared of thugs before Jane even arrives.

The solution for John and his merry band of thugs would be to pull together and start a community somewhere where they would be free to impose all of the laws and moral restrictions they wanted. It would most likely be a rapid growing and successful community. Might even turn in to it's own little nation. He could have laws and government and police and courts and taxes and a media and much, much more all within the confines of their community.

If John and his merry band of thugs cannot afford to do this or have found other personal obstacles preventing them from doing this then all they can rightfully do is to stew in their anger over this perceived evil. Otherwise, any action on John's part to impose his morality on another person will get him dead in short order.

Chipper

[tyme]

I'm pretty sure if you ask John, he'd say that shooting Jane or the doctor, after the abortion, wouldn't be enforcing morals but rather would be punishment for murder.

In John's view, starting a commune elsewhere doesn't prevent the doctor from performing abortions (murders) or Jane Doe from seeking to have an abortion (to murder).

[Jim March]

Want a "Boss Hogg" case study?

Got ya covered:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

A "Boss Hogg" type uses the power of governmental force for personal gain. Get rid of that force, and you cripple the "Hoggs".

Gun control is a tool for preventing a "Battle Of Athens" scenario.

[Chipper]

Sad to think that John appoints himself an enforcer especially after the test is clarified as to Jane's and the doctor's actions. And yes, it still remains the imposition of morality as apparently Jane and the doctor do not see the fetus as a life. When a fetus becomes an actual human life is still a subject of debate. Therefore any imposition of punishment for an abortion remains illegitimate and, in fact, an act of murder.

It was also suggested that John and his buds go start a community, NOT a commune. Though similar in appearance and perhaps in origin, in the public's mind the concept of the commune is clearly associated with socialism/communism and other characteristics associated with a lack of personal responsibility and political confusion.

Chipper

[Thumper]

Now wait...you A-Cers laud greed. Heck, me too. It what makes capitalism work.

But another characteristic of human nature is a desire for power. You guys are completely ignoring it. I promise you, if John is a charismatic individual and a good capitalist and a good organizer, life wont be good for proponents of abortion.

Or maybe blacks. Or perhaps Tutsis. Jews? Maybe he believes prima noctae sounds good for him and some of his lieutenants. Factions rule, folks.

Chipper, I know its a long shot but I keep thinking you might be SSgt. Mike Chipperini from Boston...if so, you've seen dramatic evidence of all this.

Why not just a simple government...one that guarantees, by checks and balances, that you have a certain list of human rights that protects the individual?

Where have I heard that before?

[BigG]

So what's to stop somebody from getting their own personal army and becoming a warlord in this anarchistic (libertarian?) paradise? It's a model that's worked many times throughout history. Oh, I forgot, we were disregarding reality in this discussion. My bad. :o

[Kaylee]

okay.. in this hypothetical.. I have a question.

From what I've heard so far from the A-C contingent, the trick of these things is to bring an arbitration case against the aggressor. Which of course is hard to do if you're dead.

However, most A-C things I've seen, in an effort to prevent things like "um..I'm suing on behalf of the gay baby whales your honor" kind of cases prevent a third party from bringing forward a case on behalf of another.

so... if (hypothetically speaking) say a person without friends or family is killed, and everyone knows who did the killing... how is that handled? Would a third party be able to bring the killer before an arbitration board, or does the killer get off scot-free with no one left to accuse him?

.. and by extention, would the same legal avenue, whatever it is, be open to John in the original hypothetical?



-K

[Thumper]

Wait, what if I don't agree with the arbitration board's decision against me?

I've got a bedded action 700 in .308...light winds and a clear day and the chairman of the board springs a leak.

Heck, you're right...sign me up.

:evil:

[Jim March]

Quoting:

------------------------------------
so... if (hypothetically speaking) say a person without friends or family is killed, and everyone knows who did the killing... how is that handled? Would a third party be able to bring the killer before an arbitration board, or does the killer get off scot-free with no one left to accuse him?
------------------------------------

Good question. According to L. Neil Smith, you purchase a contract with a private security company requiring them to identify and prosecute anybody that messes with you, and giving them the authority to do so (sort of a "power of attorney"). It kicks in if you're dead or too severely injured to make further arrangements.

Smith also had comments about arbitration:

If somebody appeals the decision of the first arbitrator, a second is called in. If the decision is overturned, the first arbitrator pays the appeals costs. And if THAT is appealed, this repeats one more time, and the "best 2 out of 3" wins.

It's structured to give the arbitrators a major incentive not to get overturned, and hence do good decisions.

-------------------------------------

Under Smith's theories, a major factor in all this is a "credit rating" system that factored in a person's lawfulness, their willingness to be called into account by an arbitrator and pay any bills, etc. It would detemine whether or not people would do business with you. He wrote that in 1980, and foresaw the development of a global internet to spread such "credit ratings". (People would subscribe to the ratings service of their choice.)

Go find his book "The Probability Broach":

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0765301539/qid=1047863919/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9634873-9850363?v=glance&s=books

Now, I'm not sure all this would work either. So I'm not just in favor of limited government, I'm actively working towards it.

[Thumper]

Bet my private security company trumps your private security company.

I like this...everything deteriorates 'til the best armed AND most ruthless (and immoral) wins. Then THEY get to be in charge.

Didn't Ayn Rand say this would happen?

[LoneStranger]

Thumper,
Wouldn't that law of the jungle type thingy kick in here somewhere?

For you to get to the point where you can excercise all this, "I and my gang of thugs", stuff you have to survive in an enviroment which takes not to kindly to little thugs growing up.

One does not spring forth upon the Earth as a dedicated thug with all of the necessary accouterments for being a thug. It takes a lot of minor attempts at thuggery over a number of years to train thugs.

With the elimination of the present systems that rewards and reinforces the developement of thugs where are you going to get the necessary thugs to do your dirty work?

As for your supposedly? superintelligent type, he's going to have to do a lot of breeding and training to have necessary thugs available. In that case if the po' boy had a lick of sense he would walk away from thugs account they are more trouble than they are worth.

[Jim March]

Well, I'm signing off at this point from the "pros and cons" side of this. All three related schools (Objectivist/Libertarian/A-C) have some good ideas.

What caused me to write this was a previous thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13619

My main point here in this one is that none of the three want to get anywhere with offensive violence, so asking "what gives?" is ridiculous.

[Thumper]

Not necessarily superintelligent, just charismatic.

And a little ruthless...Pol Pot, Mohammed Aidid, Genghis Khan, Osama bin Laden...History's infested with 'em.

Law of the jungle is absolutely right...

If I'm not hindered by morality, and (like any good predator) attract other predators, I'll win.

I agree that hyper government tends to breed predators (like Jim mentioned), but more flourish in the absence of government.

Factions will exist...with markedly different interests. Racial genocide is just one cause that seems to occasionally draw a lot of fans.

When the Belgians left in 1962, the Hutus and the Tutsis got pretty raw. You ever see the pics of the machete victims around '94?

[ahadams]

Tamara does deserve an honest answer to her questions.

I'm sorry Tamara but you've just highlighted one of the main reasons conservative Christians cannot cooperate with the development of an anarcho-libertarian (or any other form of libertarian) environment. You see to us the rules - including the fallen state of all creation - are neither subjective nor open to question. It does not matter that others do not agree with these rules. It does not matter that others are offended by these rules. To us such responses are similar to a three year old's attempting to disagree with gravity, or a 16 year old boy's feeling offended because inertia has a tendency to cause cars to go in strange directions if a corner is taken too fast.

Further, there is no neutral territory in this argument. We *are* our brothers' and sisters' keeper. I realize the various libertarian and pagan groups represented on this board are not going to be happy with this, but it needs to be out in the open none the less.

Oh, and remember all that stuff the various libertarian political campaigns were putting out threatening conservative Republicans (but not, for some reason, conservative Democrats) that if they didn't change their stands to incorporate libertarian values, the libertarians would attempt to sink them? We saw that in here in Missouri, and due to the fact that someone made a mistake I also saw such threats from several other states as well (CA and WI to be precise). We remember that, too.

[labgrade]

Tamara,

It is one of the underlying premises of some worldviews that the world is suspended on the back of a giant tortoise. Shall we take that as a "given" instead?

Hmm, in an way early psych class, I did this same Firesign Theatre expose regards the Combs & Snub Theory (I hadn't read the text) . Still got a b+ for ingenuity.

Thumper,

I have to admit, the whole anarcho-capitalist thing sounds really attractive to me, but history tells me it wouldn't last too long.

Limited government is the way...Just like those Dead White Guys wrote into that magnificent document.

Excellent segue to what I was going to rebute with. Thanks.

It usually doesn't last "too long." Peoples's ideas of what is "the "thing to do" somehow get in the way.

This country was founded on such "anarchistic" priciples.

Thumper,

Now wait...you A-Cers laud greed. Heck, me too. It what makes capitalism work.

BS. What makes capitalism work is providing a wanted service for a price that some will pay enough to allow the provider a "living." Sometimes "capitalism" doesn't allow the provider a living - part of the deal, no?You're reading too much into capitalism.

Law of the jungle is absolutely right...

If I'm not hindered by morality, and (like any good predator) attract other predators, I'll win.

Not if the defenders dislike your predatory nature & say "we've had enough." Go ask the griz, wolves, etc. that used to thrive throughout the wetrn US in the earlier days.

I agree that hyper government tends to breed predators (like Jim mentioned), but more flourish in the absence of government.

See my last. YOu're hypothesizing based on your own political beliefs.

I'd say any current mention of "anarchism" makes no sense, merely because none of us is using the same definition.

I've made mention before, &'ll do so again.

Loosely, ....

Laws are for those not astute enough to know what to do without someone telling 'em how & when. Although they mat harn oters in their "persuits," damage to themselves & extendeds is greater as a result.

My own definition of "arnarchism" is what I choose it to mean within the boundaries of my owm morality.

I allow that there need be some evidence of a "social lubricant" that allows us to "get along," - agreeing to drive on the right side of the road fer instance, but I cannot imagine even ten laws that I (note the I, not neccessarily you), would require for a peaceful, harmonious coexistance with my fellows.

[Thumper]

Not if the defenders dislike your predatory nature & say "we've had enough."

Oh...like the Kurds did? Oh...they died. How 'bout the Tutsis? Same thing. Jews? Oops. Armenians? Cambodians? Serbs?

Should I go to the century before? It's worse. Before that?

What's your loosely organized, self-governing paradise gonna do when your neighboring nation state decides it likes your women and land?

You're gonna build an army. And your economy dies 'cause it has to be all volunteer. Who's gonna tend the crop while you fight?

So you hire some fellas...traditional A-C stuff, Professional soldiers that are organized and well equiped enough to fight off the mongol horde. What about Farmer Jones who enjoys this umbrella of protection due to proximity but doesn't want to pay?

You gonna make him? What, tax collectors? Kinda hoses the concept, right?

BS. What makes capitalism work is providing a wanted service for a price that some will pay enough to allow the provider a "living." Sometimes "capitalism" doesn't allow the provider a living - part of the deal, no?You're reading too much into capitalism.

What kind of proper capitalist will settle for a rudimentary "living?" You build a better mousetrap so you make more money than your mousetrap building competitors. That's how we get good mousetraps.

[labgrade]

I never said I had any, much less all of the answers. Civilisations will always be at the whims of others by their very nature.

That ours has existed to this point is a real treat & I thank (my own) God that I was born here & allowed my frittance to expouse nonsense such I I'm allowed.

That the Kurds, Tutsis, et al, didn't carve out their own niche in the world (other than being examples for others how not to succeed) isn't of my doing or concern. They choose to die, as did the Jews of the '30s. They could have decided not to, ya know.

"What kind of proper capitalist will settle for a rudimentary "living?" You build a better mousetrap so you make more money than your mousetrap building competitors. That's how we get good mousetraps."

I never made any mention regards "rudementary" - merely a living, & if you are not up to snuff, you will likely starve - such is capitalism (w/out the safety net). But, for an illustrative study regards capitalism, do take a look at the patent office' applicants for mousetraps. There are only a very few that have made money - the other ~20K haven't.

What's the point other than to prove mine. Most sucked - those that worked = made money.

[Jim March]

ahadams:

To the degree with which your religious beliefs try to infringe on my personal freedom and civil rights, we are enemies.

The last time this came up in California was when Dan Lungren ran for Governor against Davis in '98. Lungren was Catholic and radically "pro life". Lungren was also radically ANTI gun, had backed a corrupt sheriff name of Craig (Sacramento County) in his war against pro-gun PD Chief Byrd plus sucked at most other personal freedom issues.

The California NRA system, including the Member's Councils and CRPA wouldn't back him. We were pressured to do so by "religious right infiltrators" in the GOP and elsewhere...pressured HARD. We didn't back down. Since then, the California GOP has been dominated by GOPers with "libertarian trends" of varying degrees, good people like Haynes and McClintock.

If you think your faith gives you a moral imperative to run MY life...I'm not somebody you or your movement wants as an enemy, and that'll do it. Bigtime.

[Thumper]

That ours has existed to this point is a real treat

Agreed...and largely attributable to that remarkable Constitution we (most of us) feel loyalty to. There are many here, even on this board, that don't.

They're mostly young, idealistic, and haven't been beyond the borders of our society. I also think they're pretty foolish.

You look down on a ditch full of dead individuals whose only crime was their ethnicity. BTW, they fought...they just weren't as organized as their aggressors.

Factions, Factions, Factions...Look at Jim and Arlin...

Too many here believe that the M1A they have in the safe or the 1911 on their hip is some magical talisman against oppression. It ain't. Organization, strength in numbers...the ability to hump a ruck...when it gets to nut cuttin' time, these are the important things. Governments have that...nobody else.

You'd better thank God that ours is as good as it is. Treasure your BOR...the alternatives some propound don't make you special; they were proven silly long ago.

A-C doesn't work...even the great thinkers A-Cers love to quote realize that.

[labgrade]

Thumper,

I'd disagree to the point that when it starts getting very tough, the constitution doesn't mean jack (not that it does anyway anymore). What does, is that good men will do the right thing most times - if nothing else to save their own necks. & if they don't, ya really don't get to read about 'em in the history books much.

I have seen The Ditch & it is never pretty. Party due to my responses, I will never be in The Ditch, for any reason, nor to any extent.

I won't argue your organisational premise, but too, & foremost, they must have the will to know they must never become feed/fodder - that aspect of "anarchism" that says we'll not be such for some other - no matter that we have a "bill of rights" (RIP), a "Constitution" (RIP) or other such man-made piece of paper that says we have what we cannot take, keep, & have & to hold by our very strength of will. Those very same who would hold up a piece of paper to "protect" us, I trust the least. History has, & is stillproving it, over again.

My definition of anarchism is likely quite far off from what others might think by the word/s used. The whole reason I specifically use the term "rational anarchy." Most don't get it.

I do think that we are always in our own state of it - we will do as we see fit, no matter (road rage, speeding, whatever, comes to mind .... they are all against the "law," & by definition "anarchistict"). Many choose to be "anti-social" whilst plying their own "anarchism," while I'll ply my own while attempting to just get by within an established framework.

That I am somehow in a mosttimes disagreement gives me no cause for ulcers. They will do as they do & I will do as I will - & neither really need cause concern for another.

I can get by enough by just not playing = my own anarchism.

Let those who will, do as they choose - I cannot change it anyway & I will do as I will.

In any event, some will attempt to define things that mean different things to others. I won't be pigeon-holed & will decide for myself what I think my own words mean.

That others don't get it, or that I can't explain over a keyboard doesn't make it any less real or "possitive."

Maybe we should hang out more & yak it up? ;)

[Thumper]

I think we agree more than disagree, Lab.

[labgrade]

I could argue the point.

:D

[Thumper]

I needed that laugh...I'm stuck babysitting my network at 2:30 A.M. Central.

[labgrade]

& I'm stuck babysitting myself.

Wonder who has the hardest task?

2:15AM here. Isn't insomnia wonderful? ;)

Glad for sharing a smile, Thumper.

We all need 'em now & again. We do tend to take ourselves too seriously.

[QKRTHNU]

Anarchy wouldn't work for a very simple reason.......

Most people don't want it. :(
Anarchy is a pipe dream because it could never last unless the vast majority believed in it.

In an A-C nation Cs would thrive even more than they do in this country today. There would be a larger number of extremely wealthy individuals. There would also be a larger number of extremely poor individuals who could no longer leach off of the wealthy.
(Note: I’m NOT saying this is a bad thing)

With no central govt. people would have two options for large-scale national defense.
1. Loosely formed militias (ideal)
2. Privately owned armies

Since there would be plenty of wealthy Cs there would be plenty of private armies.

Here's where BIG problems arise. Since it's not a perfect world and not everyone shares the same ideals and beliefs of the typical A-C there would be at least a few wealthy individuals who desire to use their private army to seize power over the people.

Again, since it's not a perfect world and most don't have self-reliance as a deep down desire, a lot of people would be subject to power-hungry individuals in one way or another.

Most people would fall into one of the following categories.
They would either:

1. Do what the army owner wanted in return for promises of power of their own.
2. Do what the army owner wanted out of fear.
3. Subject themselves to another army whose owner is promising protection from the former.

There would only be a few who would want to remain sovereign individuals.

Eventually, although it may take several lifetimes of civil war, someone would end up a Dictator.

They would end up a Dictator not because of their own strength and desire for power alone, but because of the lack of desire on the majority of the people’s part to avoid being ruled.

[Marko Kloos]

They would either:

1. Do what the army owner wanted in return for promises of power of their own.
2. Do what the army owner wanted out of fear.
3. Subject themselves to another army whose owner is promising protection from the former.

You've just described the "anarchistic" Dark Ages, where the only possible protection for serfs was either submission, or subjugation to the local lord, exchanging a lifetime of toil for safety within the castle walls in wartime.

[BigG]

Lendringser: Why do you say the serfs were anarchistic? They were pretty much property, owned by the real estate owner. There have been many dark ages throughout history. Why can't there be another one? As Ben Franklin said, either we all hang together or we will assuredly hang separately. Anarchy, as people are describing it here, is a means where we can all hang separately, if you ask me.

[Zander]

Then someone is obviously unaware that two of the supreme virtues are to Mind One's Own Business and Keep One's Hands To One's Self. -- TamaraPerhaps. :cool:

Actually, I was responding to Jim's contention:

A-S is more or less dead as an organized political school of thought, 'cept for a few loonies like ALF and some idiots sleeping on the streets in rags and too many safety pins.

If A-S is more or less dead as an organized political school of thought, someone should notify a frequent poster in these type threads who thinks that destruction of others' property is "justified".

Either one of two things obtains:

1. The "principle" underlying such a mindset is anything but, or...
2. Some property is more worth destroying than others.

Likely it's entirely situational...see point #1.

Not necessary to ID the poster [for some reason, he is notably absent in this discussion], but here's the quote:

"I can even think there might be situations where the destruction of property is appropriate."

There are A-Sers in our society...and it doesn't much matter to me what they call themselves.

[pax]

I'm sorry Tamara but you've just highlighted one of the main reasons conservative Christians cannot cooperate with the development of an anarcho-libertarian (or any other form of libertarian) environment.
Speak for yourself, Arlin.

Some of us conservative Christians believe that there is no way to coerce righteousness, and that attempts to do so are, in themselves, sinful and wrong in the extreme.

You may point out that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." I ask you to think: What is righteousness and how is it achieved? Can you achieve righteousness by voting Republican, by living a good life, by not killing people who annoy you? If you do all those things, are you righteous? Does it take more than that? If so, what? And can you coerce anyone to do that one thing?

Consider your answers carefully, and the implications thereof.

pax

Love does no harm to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law. -- the Bible