Anarchists, question for you...

[erowe1]

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.

Her.

 

[erowe1]

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.

What is the collective will? How does one recognize it so that one can tell when some people have the right to rule others?

 

[Neil Desmond]

What is the collective will? How does one recognize it so that one can tell when some people have the right to rule others?

Elections, representation, petitions, etc.

 

[erowe1]

Elections, representation, petitions, etc.

So as long as you have those things, it makes it morally right for some people to rule others?

 

[CCTelander]

I'm getting dizzy just reading this thread. Things keep going round and round in circles.

 

[Neil Desmond]

So as long as you have those things, it makes it morally right for some people to rule others?

If it has that along with a government that has a structure that people understand, is fair, and maybe even a constitution with a bill of rights, separation of powers with checks and balances, etc. then yes, I believe so.

 

[erowe1]

If it has that along with a government that has a structure that people understand, is fair, and maybe even a constitution with a bill of rights, separation of powers with checks and balances, etc. then yes, I believe so.

How is fair defined? Does there a moral standard that governs what is right or wrong for governments to do?

 

[Neil Desmond]

How is fair defined? Does there a moral standard that governs what is right or wrong for governments to do?

fair: free from bias, honest, just

I suppose things like philosophy, the scientific method & a conscience provide for a moral standard that can govern what is right or wrong for governments to do.

 

[Neil Desmond]

I'm getting dizzy just reading this thread. Things keep going round and round in circles.

Anarchist ball?

 

[erowe1]

fair: free from bias, honest, just

I suppose things like philosophy, the scientific method & a conscience provide for a moral standard that can govern what is right or wrong for governments to do.

Words like "just" only get us back to the same question.

You still must think that the moral laws that govern what's right and wrong for governments are not the ones that govern what's right and wrong for us. There are these groups of people out there called states who can do what would be wrong if you or I did it and it's not wrong when they do it.

I have trouble seeing what those moral laws are that you think govern states. It seemed a minute ago like you were saying that anything is always right for a state to do as long as it attains that power using democracy.

 

[fisharmor]

With laws that ban involuntary servitude and enforcement.

As I like to point out, 150 years ago we fought a war here.
Prior to that war, 10% of the population was enslaved 100% of the time.
After that war, 100% of the population is enslaved 50% of the time.

Progress, as defined by the state.

Bingo; without a state no one has any rights to any property.

This is something I practically wrote on a bullet and shot into Travlyr's head multiple times.
There have been stateless societies in history, and they included property ownership.
I know I'm going against what I said earlier (I'm still only at the top of page 4 as of typing this) but the best example is Kowloon Walled City.
Both the Hong Kong government and the British government claimed a 6-city-block section of Kowloon Island.
The result of the dispute was that neither took control over it for about 80 years.
Starting in the 1970s, that 6-block area turned into a 14-story megacity with over 30,000 inhabitants.
Unfortunately we're left to our own devices to determine how that was even remotely possible without a state - but I posit that it was flat out impossible without some semblance of property right.
And that property right would have to work in 3 dimensions in that example, which is something we don't even have in America.

Yeah, that was part of the idea for that question: assume each party went through the proper steps (or at least believed that they did) in an anarchist society to acquire the plots of land.

Ok so I've had a better day today.

How is it that all 110v electrical outlets in the United states are the same? What national law has made this possible?
How is it that there are exactly two smartphone operating systems of any note in the world? What state made that happen?
Why is it that the crap containers you get your Chinese food delivered in today are better products than the Tupperware that was for sale in the 1970's (for which people paid exorbitant prices)?

The market doesn't just deliver things people need. It delivers things that people need in increasing quality. The market also has a tendency to standardize the things people need.
To a point. If the old standard (usb1) doesn't work as well as the new standard (usb2) then people tend to ditch the old standard and go with the new one.

Of course I have to listen to my father bitch himself blue about how he has to get a new computer to read his $5 usb stick, but seriously, fuck him. If real progress is possible then some people are going to have to get slightly inconvenienced.

So let's examine what the state's centuries-old idea of property right is.

First of all, I'm now paying close to $3000 a year in rent on property I'm supposed to own.
Second of all, I don't have exclusive access to my property. There's at least a 15' stripe of it - which I still pay taxes on - which the state corporation commission can come tear up whenever they want, without even notifying me.
If I want to build a deck on my house, guess what? Not without permission. Not just permission, it needs preliminary approval of plans, and an inspection at at least two different points of construction.
Let's say I want to burn some leaves in my backyard... nope.
The infestation - literally, it's an infestation - of vultures in the trees in back of my house? $20,000 fine for each feather I remove from my yard.
And let's not omit that if I have the wrong plants growing on my property they're just going to come take my "property" away without even a trial.

If you're not sold on anarchism, I can understand - I was there before, too. But surely you can see how I am equally as not sold on the idea that what we have now is preferable to the six weeks' time it would take the market to figure out a standard way to be able to draw lines in the sand, can't you?

If it sounds like some of us are skirting questions about how things would specifically work, it's because we don't know. mczerone touched on this. The market provides all sorts of things and we can't tell what it's going to provide, or how it will provide it.

Two examples I like to use:
The first time I heard of a cellphone with a camera on it, I thought that was a retarded idea. If I owned stock in the companies that were doing it, I would have dumped it. And I was quite obviously wrong about what people wanted.

On the other hand, if I had heard back in 1990 that people were working on a way to have all of our bills plugged directly into our bank accounts and that they'd get paid on time automatically, I would have worked 120 hours a week to get money to invest in that technology.

I'm not good at picking winners and losers in the market - very few individual people are. So we can't know how property right is going to be provided by the market, down to individual details. And more to the point, it would be fairly meaningless if we did - because in two years that entire system could be on the ash heap of history, replaced practically overnight with property right's equivalent of the iPhone.

But our stagnant statist model of property right literally requires high-school dropouts working for Miss Utility to trample my vegetable garden and spraypaint everything whenever a neighbor two houses down wants to dig a hole.

ETA forgot to point out the obvious: that there is quite obviously a market demand for property right. So there will be a market response to that demand.

I do have a question for any anarchist who would like to answer:

Do you consider a state that does not rely on taxation, but does exert force, to be similar/related if not the same thing to a private libertarian security agency? (Perhaps a security agency merged with a fire department, etc. Mergers do happen in a free market)

No, because "state" implies monopoly. A libertarian security agency would not operate as a monopoly.

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 would like to see a US with President Ron Paul at the helm now. And if enough people had stopped saying "he'll never win" and started supporting him, then that may have happened.

 

[PreDeadMan]

Would you rather a scenario where one person might be able to take over another person or one person taking over millions of people using the powers of the state?

Neither. Why would I be in favor of either one of those situations?

Sorry for the long reply but... if you advocate for a government you obviously advocate for the latter. If you don't advocate that then you advocate a society free of rulers

 

[Neil Desmond]

I meant to catch up this weekend with this thread but was unable to do so; will try later this week or next weekend.

 

[Wesker1982]

.....

 

[Deborah K]

Let's suppose people do decide to do away with the state completely and just have anarchism. As long as scarcity still exists in society, how can anarchism perpetuate itself if an individual or group of individuals choose not to comply (or "go along") with the non-aggression principle? What's to stop groups from rising up, imposing states on society (based predominantly on geographical parameters)? On top of that, what's to also prevent it from creating a form of a state that may be far worse than what we have here in the US (i.e., one without a Bill of Rights, etc.)?

I'd like to hear from anyone who is opposed to taxes, law enforcement, etc. I'm looking for something that will convince me that anarchy is feasible. What I would like to hear is a short, simple, and - most importantly - a compelling argument. I'm mainly going to read responses, not respond to them, and will not likely be providing rebuttals for any that deserve one (anyone else can feel free to provide their own rebuttals or comments they wish). I may ask questions, for example for clarification. Think of it as an audition. If you do provide me with a convincing argument I'll post a reply stating so; otherwise I will just post a comment stating that I have read arguments up to that point, so you'll know I haven't gotten to the ones after the most recent one (yet).

Let the arguments commence!

Was I under the wrong impression that under voluntaryism (NAP; anarchy; anarcho-capitalism, etc.) there would still be laws? And therefore lawmakers and law enforcers? It is my understanding that under voluntaryism, everything is funded privately, and nothing publicly. Am I wrong?

 

[Christian Liberty]

As I like to point out, 150 years ago we fought a war here.
Prior to that war, 10% of the population was enslaved 100% of the time.
After that war, 100% of the population is enslaved 50% of the time.

Progress, as defined by the state.

Well, that's not EXACTLY the way it works. At least we have a choice not to work, and what we do with our free time, exc. Granted, its still bad (If taxation is slavery I probably support slavery 5% of the time or something) and I believe that the Southern side was justifiable over the North in the ACW, but the freeing of the slaves isn't something that ought to be trivialized.

 

[HigherVision]

The answer is, “nothing”.

There is nothing which can stop enough people from ganging up on other people, forcing them into “citizenship” and imposing all manner of dictates through coercive and physical violence, if they so wish. Not a thing.

Just as there is nothing the constitution could do to stop the emergence of the present incarnation of the U.S. government. As Spooner pointed out, either the constitution allows for the present U.S. government, or it is powerless to stop it. This is proven by mere observation. As Rothbard pointed out, without mostly decent people in the world, no order of society will “work”; but a society with mostly indecent people will find that those ills will be amplified and exacerbated with the existence of a government, since it is that entity with a monopoly on force, and indecent people naturally will gravitate to such an entity. Again, this is proven by mere observation.

So the question then becomes, by what moral/philosophical principle should we advocate society be organized? Do we advocate on behalf of a society that respects the objective sovereignty of the individual, or one that implies that some people are (mysteriously) suited to hold a position above the rest of people to some degree or another.

I'd say the latter because although the Constitution has failed to a large extent, I think the system that we'd have if most people weren't forced into living in a private property society by the Constitution would definitely be some type of Communism.

 

[fisharmor]

Was I under the wrong impression that under voluntaryism (NAP; anarchy; anarcho-capitalism, etc.) there would still be laws? And therefore lawmakers and law enforcers? It is my understanding that under voluntaryism, everything is funded privately, and nothing publicly. Am I wrong?

And again, I'm not sure why historical example never factors into these discussions, but if you look at the documented examples we have, yes, in the absence of a state there are still rules, there are still people who marshal those rules, and there are still people interested in enforcing those rules.

The biggest difference is reflected in my choice of words. Rules, laws, whatever you want to call them - if they are made up, concocted, contrived, as is done in every modern state, as we have now, then you don't have rule of law. You have rule of men. Men who might genuinely be interested in justice, but who are utterly incapable of achieving it, because they are always ultimately bound by what the law says. It has been duly recorded: so mote it be!

Laws are not properly pulled out of someone's rectum, to go through a merely cursory wipe-down by other lawmakers to make sure the thing doesn't stink so badly that the public will revolt.

Laws are discovered.

Statelessness advocates generally reject the idea of law which is generated by the state. Civil law, statutory law, regulatory law - these are all generated by the state, and if you think hard about it, you'll probably come to the same conclusion we do: at least 95% of it is meaningless, counterproductive to the stated goal of having the statute, or outright harmful to society. In addition, they create a caste of enforcers tasked with arbitrary enforcement - arbitrary because there is zero possibility of their even understanding the law in full (lawyers themselves have enough trouble with it, and get paid three times what a cop makes to try). Arbitrary enforcement means we're basically at the whims of the enforcers, as AF is so fond of pointing out on a daily basis here.

That leaves (estimated, it's probably far less) 5% of the statutory laws that we really should have laws for. There are, after all, statutes for murder, theft, rape, fraud, arson, etc.

It also leaves an all-but-forgotten legal system to take care of them: common law. And common law is how historical stateless societies have handled their legal needs.

Common law does not require professional judges, it doesn't require a courthouse, it doesn't require representatives, it doesn't require election seasons. It allows people to ignore all the pomp of the state. There are no balloons dropping from the ceiling. There is no installation of the 10 commandments plaque to get angry at. There is no sex scandal to televise. People can concentrate on the issue at hand: what is the law?

Take the issue-du-jour: gay marriage. Under a private common law system, interested parties would seek a common law hearing on the matter. Who administers the hearing is unimportant, and how it is administered is unimportant: there have been many formats. The underlying idea is always the same. They will meet to determine the answer to a particular question. We still see echoes of this today, with SCOTUS only choosing to answer particular questions, but it has been turned on its head because that one case becomes our society's permanent benchmark.

Not so in a true common law system. In that system, parties on the ground, connected to the actual issue, are involved. They would go to court specifically because, for example, a hospital denied access to a gay man's partner who got injured. Or they would go to court specifically because an insurance agency denied benefits to the partner of a deceased gay man, despite having filled out the paperwork properly. Or they would go to court specifically because a bible-thumping South Carolina man claimed inheritance right to his brother's farm, who had properly willed it to his gay partner.

The gay marriage people get something, because even if you're against gay marriage the choice in those matters is clear. The gay marriage opponents get something, because there is no sweeping pronouncement that gay marriage is now morally acceptable in our society. And everyone gets something impossible under the current system: justice on an individual level. When those parties receive justice, everyone benefits.

And history is our guide: we do not need the state for this system to work.

As I've mentioned twice in the thread now, we're not sure what the exact format of this will be. People would figure that out on the way. If you want particulars about how it would work, you may as well be asking how to decorate a banquet hall. There's no single one-size-fits-all answer to either question. But if you think about it, it takes very little faith in humanity to come to the conclusion that both questions would be figured out adequately. Even if it fails the first time, the failure becomes evident, and in a stateless society, something can be done differently the second time.

Not so with the state. The way it's done is the way it's done, and generally only violence can change that.