How much do you think that these confrontations would increase overhead? Since this would inevitably cost more, prices would have to be raised or profits would be sacrificed. All the while your competitors that are not being attacked by you are offering a non-violent, cheaper service and making a better profit. They will expand and out compete you. Customers will stop subscribing to your service because of its immorality and higher prices. Others will see your folly and the market will learn that attacking ones neighbors actually hurts business and the market will discourage this kind of behavior.
A Step-by-Step, Logical, A Priori Refutation of Minarchism and 'Limited Government'. READ.
- Thread starter Sentient Void
- Start date
-
- Tags
- minarchism
How much do you think that these confrontations would increase overhead? Since this would inevitably cost more, prices would have to be raised or profits would be sacrificed. All the while your competitors that are not being attacked by you are offering a non-violent, cheaper service and making a better profit. They will expand and out compete you. Customers will stop subscribing to your service because of its immorality and higher prices. Others will see your folly and the market will learn that attacking ones neighbors actually hurts business and the market will discourage this kind of behavior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDb9pTmSWq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g-mlg_jCFs
I did not say advanced, I said complex.
Ancient Ireland had civil law and no criminal law. Brehons would act as arbitrators for disputes between individuals. They had a bottom up society where people with power were held a higher standard then those with lower standing. Punishments for those with power were much more serve. The society was highly complex and developed over hundreds of years.
Kings did not make law and no one was forced to follow a king.
Last edited:
How can it be a monarchy when no one is forced to follow the King? How can it be Feudalism when no one is forced to work the land?
It took the English around 400 years to finally break this society. The English would send settlers in and they would turn native.
I can use retaliatory force but it must be equal to the violation of my property rights. The classic example is the little girl picking flowers in the neighbors garden. The neighbor comes out sees the little girl violating his private property and kills her. This obviously is an overreaction and now the neighbor has become the aggressor and needs to be held accountable.
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
in the anarchist society, who defines proper punishment?
for example, one might claim that if i steal from you, recovering the goods AND the fees you paid to your security agency is proper punishment. what if your thief says that extracting the fees is excessive punishment, and then decides to retaliate against you? would that be proper? also, could he claim that you used an agency that was unnecessarily expensive, so the fees are unjust?
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
How is this any more arbitrary than the current system? Right now, "proper" punishment is typically determined on a whim by judges or juries-not necessarily fitting the crime. I don't recall the stats for the number of innocent people in jail, but it's pretty darned high.
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
i'm asking the question to the people who know the answer to "how proper punishment is defined/determined in an anarchist society?". if you don't know the answers, please don't distract from the discussion. thanks in advance.
Last edited:
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,867
Additional thoughts:
"Voluntary society" is somewhat irrelevant in the sense that the term does not convey nature, i.e. the character and quality relevant to our discussion. Even a "voluntary" nation has governing going on. This is so because you will likely always have those who steal, assault, and murder. Such cases must either be dealt with or we choose the law of the jungle, which to some may hold a romantic appeal, but in reality would be a nightmare in just about every way imaginable. Regulation of morally unacceptable behavior is absolutely essential if we are not to live under circumstances of perpetual, rank savagery. One of the keys here is holding proper definitions of "morally unacceptable", and this is one of the areas where governance has run wildly astray, both in the USA and indeed across the face of the planet. This alone is sufficient reason to replace rule of law with rule of principle. Base governance on the most fundamental, obvious, and apodictic principles of humanity, e.g. the Canon of Individual Sovereignty, and most of your problems vanish as if by magic - but not all as we will see.
If the day comes that someone contrives technology that would enable each individual to absolutely guarantee their own safety - something like the "corbomite" device of the original Star Trek series, then governance as we have known it in terms of regulating individual behavior might be able to come to an end, but even that is not certain. Some aspects of governing could certainly go the way of the dodo, but I am not sure about all. Imagine, for instance, that Johnny Rocketsurgeon decides to poison a local river with 5 tons of uranium hexafluoride - he is not attacking anyone in a direct manner, but he is threatening them in any event (UHex is fantastically dangerous, esp. when it meets water).
In any event, such technology does not really remove governance, it only shifts the responsibility for, and the instrumentality of it away from a mob and onto the shoulders of the individual and the providers of the technology. This may or may not be prefereable, depending on one's point of view. Government functions are, nevertheless, still needed because of human nature, which is the nature of life. It is in our fabric to interfere - the robber interferes with his victim, government interferes with the robber. We have yet to step away from this completely on the robber's end of things, which necessitates we choose either to apply counter force (governance) or live in chaos, the latter pretty much being a universal non-starter. It is therefore incumbent upon us to choose a system of governance that serves us justly and in welcomed fashion. Such a system serves a single purpose: to remove all unwanted and harmful interference from our lives, which is another way of saying "to guarantee and protect" our individual rights and to adjudicate conflicts that cannot be otherwise resolved by the parties in question. That last bit is the real kicker - the lynch pin upon which the whole ball of wax turns.
Guaranty and protection of rights where non-interference is concerned is a relatively simple and easy matter from the standpoint of governance. If the person is not stealing, assaulting, or murdering, leave him alone. Almost.
If he is dumping the UHex into the river, his violation of others through the violation of the integrity of the commons that is the river is clear, and governance may be applied with little cause for hesitation IMO. But what if he is peeing in the river, or just on its banks and someone complains. claiming he is polluting the commons and therefore impacting (interfering) with their rights? Those whose task it is to peel away the layers of such a claim now find themselves sitting atop an onion of epic proportions. Peeing in the river is not the best example, but consider perhaps that Johnny dumps a container of used motor oil or gasoline on his lawn or into the river and a neighbor complains. What then? Investigation should be carried out, should it not? What if the water table is very high, the soil sandy and Johnny's neighbor has a very shallow well not ten feet from where the oil spilled? Is Johnny restricted from spilling oil on his own property because it might contaminate his neighbor's water? If not, this suggests that his neighbor is obliged to suffer contamination of his well before injunctive (preemptive) remedies would be available. Once contaminated, what does the neighbor do? Go on city water? What if he likes his well water? Have not his rights been clearly violated? And what if the nature of the violation is such that no acceptable remedy is available? What if, once contaminated, there were no technological means of decontamination? What if Johnny were constructing a fuel-air bomb (a small one as experiment) and it went off, killing his neighbors? What remedy is there then? Are these not bases for preemptive relief? I am not saying they are, but am asking the questions only, so do not mistake my tone.
Consider yourself alone on the street at night. A stranger makes a threatening gesture toward you - perhaps says he's going "get you". You draw you pistol and fire, killing him. By all logic you have acted within your rights, even if the stranger was just joking. You reasonably believed that your life was in imminent danger and acted. Is this not the same when the neighbor sees Johnny about to spill the oil not ten feet from his well? Is he not entitled to defend his property by some means, and in this case himself by extension, from possibly irreparable damage at Johnny's hands? How is the situation to be resolved such that justice and equity are best served?
These are the gray areas that make governance terribly difficult to carry forward in a way that protects everybody's rights. I am all for minarchy - absolute minimum "government". I have yet to be convinced that anarchy (no government) is workable. Most of what I have seen described as "anarchy" is not an absence of governance, but rather the presence of minimal governance that is presumably based in principle such that just and equitable solutions are attained where crime and conflicting interests arise. Once again, calling a German Shepherd a "gold fish" does not make it one. Labels are really devilish and if we are to get our thinking straightened out on these issues we will have to get beyond the veil of labels and focus on PRINCIPLES.
Last edited:
Travlyr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 14,088
A paragraph from the OP,
And even more support,
It was refuted here,
Which misses the point,
Then erowe1 seems to support my idea that absent formal property rights agreements, each person is allowed to determine their own property rights and boundaries ... Possession is 9/10 of the law, or he said, she said.
Do you also agree that it destroys his entire argument?
I pointed out what I believe is a fatal flaw in his hypothesis (in bold),
I found some support that defined property rights are necessary to determine valid ownership,
And even more support,
It was refuted here,
Which misses the point,
Then erowe1 seems to support my idea that absent formal property rights agreements, each person is allowed to determine their own property rights and boundaries ... Possession is 9/10 of the law, or he said, she said.
Do you also agree that it destroys his entire argument?
Wesker1982
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,807
What makes you think no one has thought of these scenarios? Sure, there are answers, to ALL of them, but it would take more time than what its worth trying to explain it to you. And thats not because I can't provide answers in a post, its just that I don't personally want to write book-length posts to someone who is unlikely to change his mind. I would be willing to contribute a greater length of time explaining all of this to someone who was genuinely curious and open minded, you just don't come off like that. I am sure you have had conversations trying to convince maybe a liberal about how the welfare state actually hurts the poor (or a similar minarchist position that seems EXTREME to most people), but despite the logic of your argument, you just knew it was a waste of time. It didn't mean your argument was any less sound, but you know the time is better spent using the same logic on someone who is more open minded and not as far gone.
Plus, it gets to the point that if you are genuinely interested you will read a book. I initially got interested in Austrian Economics because of a message board, I asked some basic and general questions, but I knew it would be silly to expect people to educate me sufficiently on Austrian Economics through writing posts on a forum.
My point is that on one hand you seem interested enough to participate in this thread, but you don't seem interested enough to really look into what we are saying, so I don't know what your goal is. You probably realize you won't change an anarchists mind, much like someone couldn't convince you that we need the Fed (or change your mind on any other EXTREME minarchist positions). So whats your goal here?
Thats more of an argument against the state.
This is answered, of course, in 'Ethics of Liberty'.
Also, I have some questions about your state that maybe you could help me with?
source: http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/08/statist-apocalypse.html
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
it's a fun game to imagine what would happen in different scenarios. so i ask anarchists what they think would happen in the society they propose.
at this point of the thread i am not trying to compare the two proposals and see which is better/possible. i'm curious as to what anarchists think (curious enough to ask in a forum, not yet to read a book, plus i don't have that kind of time anyway).
you guys think non-anarchism sucks? ok. i wanna hear what you propose.
what makes you think that i think that nobody thought of those scenarios? i don't think that.
Last edited:
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
if you think that, the right way to convince others for your system is proving what you claim above and also proving that your alternative will be desirable. not to appeal to some arbitrary non-aggression "principle" that begs the question of what should be done.
Travlyr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 14,088
+ rep for your persistence.
Anarchists, it is time for you to help us with your definitions. When I look-up anarchy in the dictionary, I find "no ruler" as the simplest definition. "No ruler" implies no rules, for if you have even one rule, then it becomes self-ruled. So instead of a designated ruler, everyone is their own ruler. Now some people just can't do that, can they? Jared Loughner is one example of millions, and the policeman in Utah who broke down the door, in the middle of the night, and shot the man holding a golf club is another of millions. So please define your position.
Also, the current system even if it followed the constitution to the letter of the law, which it doesn't, is not what most minarchists view as minarchy. Anarchists and minarchists are allies. Let's work together to defeat the current ruling oligarchy with the printing press who rule with the absolute power to counterfeit money out-of-nothing. When the world uses honesty in transactions with real money, then you will likely find that minarchy is virtual anarchy.
Wesker1982
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,807
Ok, thats fine. But personally I'm not interested in spending time talking about this with someone unless its at least somewhat likely to provoke a real (as in willing to read) interest.
It obviously wouldn't be productive if every time someone asked a question about philosophy X you just demanded they read a book, but it does get to that point sometime. I think you have been exposed enough to the idea that if you won't read or listen to an audio book by now, I don't think anything more I or anyone else might say is likely to change that.
To me its like, why spend X amount of hours trying to persuade person A who doesn't seem likely (say 15%) to take any further interest, when the same amount of hours could be spent trying to persuade person B who is 40% likely to take further interest? Other anarchists here might have a different view, I am not trying to discourage discussion between people who are only mildly interested, I just personally believe my time would be spent more productively discussing this with people more interested.
(Those numbers are just to illustrate my point of view but not necessarily to represent anyone in this thread.)
First of all, you really should admit that ancient Ireland was not "stateless".
Here you are trying to describe their system of government in great detail, all the while pretending that it somehow didn't exist.
How precisely do you justify this utterly hypocritical logic?
And if ancient Irish society was "complex", but not "advanced", then you must concede that it was perhaps limited in some way?
If so, please tell me how it may have been limited precisely.
And if Brehon-law (the common law of ancient Ireland) was "civil", but not "criminal", does that mean that it did not forbid something like murder?
And if murder was punishable under Brehon-law, then how would this fundamentally differ from "criminal-law"?
Technically, any system headed by a "king" is a "monarchy", and when landowners are the only group allowed to join a political "assembly", under that "king", then that is very much like a "fiefdom".
Also, if the "king" is a "head priest", then that sounds a lot like a "theocracy" as well.
I'm not saying that Irelands system was terrible, maybe it was relatively great.
All I am saying is that it was not "stateless", and that there are better forms of government, such as the U.S. Constitution for example.
Last edited:
TortoiseDream
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2009
- Messages
- 1,795
I think we should bring back slavery. Think about all the economic benefits slavery gave us. Cotton farmers wouldn't have to pay workers, but would reap all the benefits of their labor. They made tons of profits! And that's what capitalism is all about, maximizing profit! Oh, and then just think what would happen if the slaves didn't have their masters. They wouldn't find jobs! They can't depend on themselves. We're doing them a favor by owning them, giving them food to eat and a daily day's work. It's the most economically efficient, desirable, and humanitarian system we could adopt. It's A+ in my book. How can you possibly disagree?
Wesker1982
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,807
This is what all minarchists suffer from, imo.
On one hand socialism is utterly disastrous, such absolutely VITAL services such as healthcare, money, and food production, etc. are just too important to be left in the hands of the state. But at the same time, police and courts MUST be provided by the state because they are just too important to be left to the chaos of the free market.
The state is absolutely terrible and inefficient at every thing it does and the market is always more efficient than the state, but somehow the nature of the state and market are different when it comes to police and courts.
Socialism is the worst thing ever, but the best answer to police and courts. The free market is the best thing ever, but a bad solution to courts and police.
Welcome to 1984
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
there is no market when different competing agencies are blowing up each other. you might believe that non-anarchists are wrong in believing that would happen without a state, but that doesn't make it true that classic liberals just decide that one arbitrary product shouldn't be provided in the market. classic liberals believe (or at least some classic liberals) that without a state, there would be no market.
i personally oppose anarcho-capitalism because i think the law should be uniform. you shouldn't have for example different courts deciding things with different criteria. that's what would happen if you had competing courts. so it's a moral issue, not one of economics.
Last edited:
