Anarchists, question for you...

[Neil Desmond]

You have it backwards.
The only Rights one has is those he can defend.

In an anarchist society sure, why not. That means that when you are no longer able to defend your anarchy "rights" you lose them, because you lost the battle (and probably your life, too, while you were at it).

In anarchism, if someone decides to take your computer, car, home, money, etc., then it could be that it becomes their anarchist "property" because they possess it now.

One relinquishes his Rights when he cedes the defense of those Rights to the state.

In the context you're talking about yes, that would be true.

With the state, if someone decides to take your computer, car, home, money, etc., that is not justifiable for your property, which you have a right to with the existence of the state, and that person would not be able to claim that it is their property just because they possess it now.

 

[Neil Desmond]

I would like a world without government, though I don't see it happening. But I do agree with the morality arguments for it.

I do see it happening; what we need to deal with is scarcity. It's arguable that scarcity is artificial. With the implementation of robotics, automation, and other forms of technology, I think we'll be able to do away with the "need" (whether you agree or disagree that such a thing exists) for government and the state - if we can eliminate scarcity.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Well YOU assumed the "resistance" I was talking about was a violent uprising. I never said anything about that. I was talking about the POWER of the truth. The truth being that they have NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. When the breaking point of people (which I estimate to be 15%) actually get this through their heads, the tide turns and people resist the tyranny. This "resistance" would take numerous forms. I'm sure their would be some violence but the greater part of "resistance" would be in simply ignoring their stupid "laws". With those kind of numbers ignoring the laws, there is no power on earth that would be able to place them all in "custody" or a "pretend trial"...

Ah, ok - well then I'll take a look at it again this weekend.

 

[Neil Desmond]

It's a system that's as moral as the people within it - no more, no less. Any deviation would cost the decision maker economically.



Bullcrap. There are a number of ways to argue against this claim, highest among them: (1) you can't know all the statutory laws - there are too many; (2) the written law can be interpreted 20 different ways by 10 different judges; (3) there are still many situations where legal experts agree that "the law" is unclear about the outcome of a case - either due to novel facts applied to old statutes or to new statutes being applied to a set of facts that used to be treated differently; (4) Statutes change every day in the regulatory, civil and criminal codes - not to mention the procedural rules of the courts; (5) there are umbrella charges that can be applied to anyone at any time - commonly called "contempt of cop"; and (6) even in statist jurisprudence it is generally accepted that "the law" is not something that anyone can know all of at any time - it is merely "discovered" by trial and error over time.



Unsuspecting victims? You would consent to rules of behavior upon your own actions, and know explicitly what you can and can not do to others and keep your representation by your selected DRO. The statist system better fits your critique here: at any time an agency with which you've never contracted can change their rules and come after you for breaking them.



So because something was written down by one agency at some point makes the decision right? First, why wouldn't there be "publicly inspected records" in a voluntary society? It seems that a cooperative agency would find benefit in providing this service, and could survive economically by charging Title insurers a premium for certified deeds at the time of sale of a property. Second, your prior argument against distributed/voluntary law was that it was "immoral" - this blind following of state records of ownership is demonstrably immoral. There are cases in US courts that take these records back to their first creation, and have held that conquest of the land by the British crown was a superior claim to a voluntary deed transfer from the native owner to a willing buyer.

The whole statist system is nothing but violence all the way down.

You have some interesting points and I'll address them, but I'll have to do that this weekend. Thanks for responding.

 

[The Gold Standard]

What about the remaining one case out of the ten? It's not clear to me what your assessment is there.

It should be clear, but so should most of the points people are making here. Let me dumb it down for you. His assessment is that you aren't the one remaining case out of ten.

 

[erowe1]

Seems like a good argument for advocating a theocracy to religious people - but I'm specifically referring to anarchism, not a theocracy & not just religious people.

There are no nonreligious people. And there is no getting around the morality of it. You only have two choices. Either there is such a thing as an objective moral law of right and wrong, in which case the state must be judged by it, or there is no such law, in which case there could be no moral objection to anarchy, or crime, or anything else you can come up with in your scenarios.

 

[erowe1]

No, it's not involuntary servitude at all. Property rights do not exist without the state, and taxes belong to the state if there is a constitutional law stating such a thing.

Who has the authority to make up such a law? Can I call myself a state, write a constitution, and then collect taxes, and it won't be theft when I do it?

 

[Neil Desmond]

It should be clear, but so should most of the points people are making here. Let me dumb it down for you. His assessment is that you aren't the one remaining case out of ten.

Are you calling me names? Are you calling me dumb? Let me tell you something, you can call me all the names you want and insult me until you're blue in the face & I won't give a damn. You can come at me with flawed arguments, ad hom attacks, whatever & I'll be able to handle it.

I don't care if you & he have decided that I'm not that one case out of ten, I still want to know the answer anyways. Are you that afraid of the answer that you have to try to jump in between him and me to block the question or answer? It's silly to think that such a pathetic post will do the trick. I'll let him speak for himself. If you don't like the anwer, too bad.

 

[Neil Desmond]

There are no nonreligious people. And there is no getting around the morality of it. You only have two choices. Either there is such a thing as an objective moral law right and wrong, in which case the state must be judged by it, or there is no such law, in which case there could be no moral objection to anarchy, or crime, or anything else you can come up with in your scenarios.

I'm a non-religious person. I've expressed moral objection to anarchy and explained why in a previous post on this thread.

 

[erowe1]

I'm a non-religious person. I've expressed moral objection to anarchy and explained why in a previous post on this thread.

If you have a moral objection to anything, that means you're a religious person.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Who has the authority to make up such a law? Can I call myself a state, write a constitution, and then collect taxes, and it won't be theft when I do it?

Sure, you can try. Not sure how successful you'll be, though - but isn't that essentially what monarchs do?

Theft is also something that does not exist without the existence of the state.

 

[Neil Desmond]

If you have a moral objection to anything, that means you're a religious person.

You can have that definition of religion if you wish, mine is that religion consists of both moral and dogma. I don't care about dogma, so I'm not religious.

 

[erowe1]

religion consists of both moral and dogma

The above quote is a dogma.

 

[erowe1]

Sure, you can try. Not sure how successful you'll be, though - but isn't that essentially what monarchs do?

It's what all states do.

I thought you said in post #68 that you thought that would be wrong. But you keep defending it.

Who are these people that have the right to anoint themselves as "the state"? And what gives them that right?

 

[Neil Desmond]

The above quote is a dogma.

That's a definition, to me. To me, dogma refers to brands of religion with their symbols, fables, rituals, holidays, dress codes, etc.

 

[Neil Desmond]

It's what all states do.

I thought you said in post #68 that you thought that would be wrong. But you keep defending it.

Who are these people that have the right to anoint themselves as "the state"? And what gives them that right?

No, post and quote directly like I asked before.

 

[erowe1]

No, post and quote directly like I asked before.

I did that the last time you asked.

But once again, here you go:

Please clarify this as it relates to my question. If the scenario you described, where a group of thugs imposed their rule on others, were to happen, would that be wrong?

Oh, sorry if it wasn't clear that the answer was an emphatic "yes." The answer is YES, and emphatic one.

Do you still think that's wrong?

 

[erowe1]

That's a definition, to me. To me, dogma refers to brands of religion with their symbols, fables, rituals, holidays, dress codes, etc.

Oh wait a second. You're a Randian aren't you?

 

[Neil Desmond]

I did that the last time you asked.

But once again, here you go:


Do you still think that's wrong?

Thank you.

To answer your question, I still think it's wrong and just because I said you can try doesn't mean I'm saying that it's right. By saying you "can", I just mean you can attempt to take action if you wish, not that I'm giving you my blessing or something to that effect. I would be using the word "may" if that were the case. Is it clear, now?

And yes, you could say that that's what states do. I'd say that the difference between one that the collective will condone and one that the collective won't condone is morality. If you want to attempt to make yourself king, you'll have to deal with whether or not the collective will condone it or not.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Oh wait a second. You're a Randian aren't you?

Wait, what? Are you saying that Rand is a supernatural mythological being or something? I'm not worshipping him, I'm merely supporting him.

That was amusing, though.