Anarchism

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll pay them more (assuming I'm not the privately funded police myself...which I am). I don't think you're going to fare so well against me. I'm a violent drunk with guns, a small army, and a technical or two, remember?
(also, I don't fight fair. I'm a big fan of booby trapping my private roads)

Who decides, btw, what these "private police" are within their rights to do, or what actions (or people) they will act against?

[JefferyHale]

I'll pay them more (assuming I'm not the privately funded police myself...which I am). I don't think you're going to fare so well against me. I'm a violent drunk with guns, a small army, and a technical or two, remember?

Natural selection. Plus, this is your opinion that I wouldn't fare well against you. Also, what's to say I'm not more equipped? Again, I believe that only the strong should/would survive in a society like this. Do you think the police isn't paid off, bought or corrupt? My father was in law enforcement, I know this to be quite true. With a little digging I'm sure you could find cases where this is true, too.

You act as if there's no violence against innocent people now & this would only come by way of "no government". This is obviously not the case. But, a lot of criminals have learned how to work the system & are more apt to harm those that may not be as inclined to know what their rights are. In a society based on vigilantism, each person would have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. Therefore, making criminals less likely to do harm to just anyone, because at any time, that person could retaliate.

If one looks at the old west, it's a lot less violent than media/Hollywood would lead you to believe. The vast majority of towns were free-market enterprises, lex talionis (law of retribution) & there was no government & hired bounty hunters (privatized law enforcement). The common assumption is that there was lawlessness everywhere & people were killing other people left & right. Actually, crime was low due to the very reasons I mentioned earlier about criminals.

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to feel that arguing against our current shortcomings will somehow make the case for your proposed system. It does not. Nor does reference to the old west (or that period in time), for while the law was lax it was nevertheless present (or could be summoned). I find it amusing that you would even reference this period in time because private police forces have an impressive track record of oppressing and brutalizing John Q.....

(ps, it isn't my opinion, and if you can't even conceptualize a way to handle a situation in which you are faced with a superior enemy then I say your system is unfit. Being confronted by a superior aggressor is a very common event. If your solution is "well I guess I'll just die" then you have nothing to offer. Your system doesn't do away with any of the things you feel that the state is uniquely responsible for, because I can enact all of these -and worse- on you with just a handful of bullets or men. But it does do away with the infrastructure and logistics that protect you from me.)

[Something completely different]

I only use quotes that represent my stance & back things I too have already said. You read my "wall-of-text" earlier. Nevertheless, if a quote or philosopher best represents my point(s), then I'm going to use it where I see fit. I see no problem with this. Now, if I didn't have any ideas of my own to offer up & used only quotes from other individuals, then I too would agree with you. None of the quotes I've used thus far were taken out of context.

I`ll then take it that your telling the truth.
I`m a book-personality, a reader, so it would still be helpfull to have some foundational work from which I can work with. I asume you must have some kind of philosophical work as guidline.
I`m not trying to question your idelogical background, I`m just someone who needs to know details.

As for you response to "statism", you're incorrect. In a stateless society, there would be NO force.

not necesserily force as in police-force, or force in the sence of violents.
My point is, that deconstructing goverment provided services or eaven the framework of democracy without public suport on the basis of creating a utopian sociaty - is force.

Therefore negating what it is you responded with. A democracy advocates "mob rules" & that the majority have a say over the minority.

As far as I know almoust every parlament on my continent requires a 60 vote of the parlament to pass a bill. Goverments are therefor sometimes required to work with the opposition.
On the otherhand - if elected by majority this is a contract to do a job, and this contract expires when the job is not done in interest of the majority. And most importent of all - There is no endless contract to build a utopia, only a time limited contract to solve current problems.

The reason people vote in a leader, is so that particular leader puts into motion that in which they feel is moral & just, even if others do not wish to follow said rules/laws. This goes against my principals.

fair enought, i believe the key part of a democracy is that one can change the current "leader" if the work of that individual is not satisfying or doesn`t bring the right results. When others dont believe in this motion they may try to be more convincing at the next election.
If the oppositions objections turn out to be baseless, because results are good, their critizism fades.

You can abolish taxes by voting? Which ballot supported this? Sounds as if you're cherry-picking to justify your stance on the matter.

where am i cherrypicking? theoretical yes, you could run for public office on any campainpromise - it`s how convincing your arguments are which matters.
Can I give a actual example? Not from my country, in which goverment finaced institutions have great ratings and are accepted by most parties.

And you're not playing words? So, because they don't have a right to enforce their rules/laws onto me, I should then take the approach THEY too see fit in order to change something that is merely a pipe-dream in a government-based society?

If by "THEY" you mean the rest of sociaty which has agreed that democracy is the better form of goverment. Yes.
We had 3 dictatorships in the past 100 years, the lesson to learn is obvious; a promiss of sociatal perfection is not enought to get the social contract for nationbuilding for an infinite amount of time.

Do you see the irony here? Why have government in the first place? This is my point. Without government I wouldn't have to vote to change things that just won't happen.

No I dont see the irony. I believe is better to be ruled by someone whom you disagree with but whom you can vote out of office due to the system, than having someone or some system in power with whom you agree with but which ignores, rejects and need not fear any opposition.

What is this hard-on with the state/government? I take it you're a product of public schools?

oh how condacending, to your information - public schools in germany have a very good reputation.
But no, I was kicked out of high school due to drunkeness, and am currently at nightschool which has no humanistic subjects to learn - but which still is a public institution.

My hard on with state? not realy, i am a pragmatic, i do believe that tax relief for buisnesses can be a factor to give power to the economy, although I believe in results which have to be presented for that.
The word "social justice" has long been replaced in my political vocabulary with "social responsibility".
But I also believe in comunity action, I believe in my nations social healthcare system. I believe that education is a human right and not a product, and therefor support my goverment in setting a limit on how high student fees can be, as well as i support that our goverment puts massive funds into the private educational sector to keep fees low.
I believe in my social security net, which catches people who fall out of sociatie normal flow due to losing the job.
But i am not in support of a welfare state which is why i support the work requirement.
I am in support of goverment provided services in form of companies like public transportation, but i dont believe in mad spending which is why i support the closure or privatisation of every goverment owned buisness which doesnt make profit.

Well these are a list of current socaiatil problems within germany.
And of course there are other things which will play a role in the upcoming election. The difference is, if i choose a liberteria, conservative, socialist or other solution depends on how convincing in both logical and logistical terms the arguments of the parties are.

You see anarchism as chaos & that is merely an illusion.

oh i do believe that without laws some might organise themselves.
I am more concerned about moral issues resulting out of complete lawlessnes.
I base my argument against lawslessness on the studies by the linguist and psychologist Karl Bühler and the philosopher Günter Anders.

Also, here's another excellent video (that's not nearly as long as most).

on the vid:[/quote]

"it is never apropriate to use force except to fend of aggression from another?"

and how far may one go to defend yourself? telling a thief to fuck of or roastin him alive over an open fire in public? Institutions to prevent such things as selfjustice, to define justice and to inforce justice would be required to prevent individual excesses.

"anarcho-capitalists define force as inlegitemate - the state has a monopoly on force - therefor the state is inlegitemate"

like i said before, as long as one cannot provide a sociaty without force\violence (Utopia), the need for institutions which set laws and limits to violence, aswell as inforces violence if necessery is given.

"central institution shouldn`t have force"

is he realy sugesting that one may privatise the goverments monopoly on force?

"we would use non-agression to reach that non-force state"

that sounds a bit naiv and out of touch with reality

"it doesn`t make sence to use force to preach non-force"

now that just sounds hare krishna

"information-free-flow"

I agree that transparecy is an importent part of a working sociaty, but to claim that transparecy isn`t possible within a democracy makes no sence to me. - look at Denmark

" the monopoly of the state should not interfere with the market"

wouldn`t a buisness with monopoly-power interfere with the freedom of other participants of the market? - wouldn`t it be wise to "inforce" a standard of non-monopoly

"one distorts information (transparecy) when redistributing wealth and interfereing in the market"

true in the case of greece where numbers were cooked by the goverment.
But ignoring cases such as Enron and the cause of the 2008 housing bubble, which also occured partly to the distortion of information, cooking of books and lack of transparecy.
I believe transparecy can be a virtue - but should be (as you would say) inforced.

"you see more and more recources going, into the not so productive places"

I am against financing companies with state money when they arent productive.

but health care and education are human rights - not products, and therefor deserve a comunity concern to be held upright by laws based on more than individual selfishness, eaven if a educational institution brings no profit - a engenier, biologist, genetisist, mathematician, economist, chemist - do.

"governace argument"

I support the argument of decentralisation of goverment and federalism, I think it is rational to let certain comuities within a nation govern certain parts of sociaty by themselves instead of having a dependents from a capital city.
Since my nation use to consist of various small nations which were only later united - the individual sovereign traditions were kept - this gave the base for a competetative economic ground - which is one of the main reasons why the german economy is so strong. The individual management of economy, finance and force on a smaller scale can make institutions within such a smaler state work more efficient. A concept which deserves to be more wide spread.

finaly something we can agree on.

"it would be an x-factor, because people would live and work on the behalf of their own values and preferences"

exactly.
Karl Bühler conducted studies on children in schoolclasses devided into two groups, in which he let several schoolclasses from several backgrounds in several nation do a test - in which one group had the chance to cheat.
What he found out was - neighter background, education nor set of values had anything to do with if they would cheat or not - conclusion what a person defines as right or wrong isn`t only defined for that individual by a set of values but also by the chances it has.

The philosopher Günter Anders summed it up as "Evil resulting out of chance to do evil" when he tried to analyse why so many germans participated in crimes against humanity during the NS era.

and to me it is a risk not worth talking. Human behavior cannot be predicted nor can it be restricted to act according a social moral code under the "liberty" of total selfdetermination.

"the economic instetutions which will come into existance will produce values, and since values are constantly changeing so will the institutions which govern them"

the great thing about democracy is that values are changed with a aproval of a majority on the basis that they will be tested until the next election.
If values were to be given by economic institutions they would be totalitarian because they come without the approval of a majority but through the proposal of an individual and probably in conflict with the values given by other economic institutions - conflict.
And what kind of values would those be which are given by economic institutions.
Kellogs sexual frustration and obsetion with damning human pleasure through sex?
Enrons deceiving of the public, lack of transparecy and los of reality?
Lehman Brothers complet decent into madness through losing reality?
HBCS financing iranian rockets?
Deutsche Bank deceiving it`s customers?
Mitzubischi selling default cars?
Shell and Exon ignoring climat change and therefor science?

you probably heared these examples before, but when putting up a theory, one must be willing to take lessons from example from reality.
and reality doesn`t rely look nice in this case.

Also, I'd recommend, if you haven't already, looking into the different forms of anarchy. I stand by anarcho-capitalism & find the others deplorable & that is why I align myself with this particular sub-sect of anarchism. There's a huge different between something like anarcho-capitalism & anarcho-communism.

i will try to get more informed for futur debates and to be nice, eaven if i dont want to.

i am not a communist!!!

[festive1]

As for roads, well I guess it's a good thing that America has them in time for the anarchy to begin. But roads have to be repaired regularly. Without a central government how would something this simple get accomplished?
I'd be happy with an admission/clarification of this being your ideal, fantasy, "if I were king of the world" world, not an actual world in which anyone would have to function. I can respect that, even if I don't agree with it. Because, pragmatically speaking, your plan sucks, especially if you aren't rich... or white (I can't overlook the racial undertones of social darwinism, sorry)

There are many successful & rich individuals who are quite wealthy & would most likely be advocates of such a system, who are not white. You're mistaking social Darwinism with ethnic cleansing I believe. I'm against Nationalism fully & find such abhorrent things utterly disgusting & contemptible. Though I'm guessing you're liberal, therefore, the race card being brought up does not shock me.

I bring up the race issue, because it is a viable issue in this discussion. If we were to wake up tomorrow and simply have no government, instead the system which you propose, it would negatively impact racial minorities to a greater extent than whites. That is a valid assertion. Sure, Herman Cain would have no problem going about his daily life, but lots of other African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities would suffer in greater numbers than average white Americans in your proposed scenario.

[The Grand Nudger]

Remember, only the "strong" will/should survive Festive.

[Whateverist]

Think I see the problem, Jeff.

[Mister Agenda]

The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that.....

the anarchists are honest.

Argued like a Christian.

---

Nice! I would compare most libertarians to agnostics. They're apologists. Where, I would compare most anarchists to atheists. They're bold.

Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

I must be an apologist, it can't be that I haven't heard convincing answers from anarchists on ensuring national defense or on how everyone's rights will be protected. I have heard at least one anarcho-captitalist admit to me personally that they'd prefer a society where they have to guard their house personally and vigilantly to one where there's a reasonably high expectation of safety if it meant 'getting rid of government'.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. I'd like us to adopt a measure similar to Canada's that requires new spending to come out of spending cuts elsewhere that has them much better off than us right now. I'm not an apologist for government, I'm an advocate of it: I just don't think more is always better and recognize the tendency of bureacracies to focus on their own survival.

---

Natural selection. Plus, this is your opinion that I wouldn't fare well against you. Also, what's to say I'm not more equipped? Again, I believe that only the strong should/would survive in a society like this.

And you think you're arguing FOR anarcho-capitalism? You'd have to have a totalitarian regime in the first place to impose this, because your values are totally off the reservation where most of us live.

Do you think the police isn't paid off, bought or corrupt? My father was in law enforcement, I know this to be quite true. With a little digging I'm sure you could find cases where this is true, too.

You certainly seem to skip the middle man when it comes to having police that are paid off, bought off, AND corrupt.

You act as if there's no violence against innocent people now & this would only come by way of "no government".

Sure there's violence against innocent people now. But you're not even trying to make out like there will be equal or less violence against them in the system you propose.

This is obviously not the case. But, a lot of criminals have learned how to work the system & are more apt to harm those that may not be as inclined to know what their rights are. In a society based on vigilantism, each person would have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. Therefore, making criminals less likely to do harm to just anyone, because at any time, that person could retaliate.

Maybe an armed society is a polite one, but the fastest draw doesn't have to be so polite.

If one looks at the old west, it's a lot less violent than media/Hollywood would lead you to believe. The vast majority of towns were free-market enterprises, lex talionis (law of retribution) & there was no government & hired bounty hunters (privatized law enforcement). The common assumption is that there was lawlessness everywhere & people were killing other people left & right. Actually, crime was low due to the very reasons I mentioned earlier about criminals.

Now this is a good point. Of course, they could string you up for things that weren't crimes because no one was protecting anyone's right to freedom of speech and religion.

[jonb]

The strong survive?
That's why there are none of these-

and the world is full of these-


I'm with the weak, we usually win.

[festive1]

The strong survive?
That's why there are none of these-

---

and the world is full of these-


I'm with the weak, we usually win.

---