Anarchy Means Only No Rule, No Rulers; In Other Words -- Freedom

[acptulsa]

Why would a net taxpayer voting system be an oligarchy? Are you saying rich business owners are the only ones who pay taxes?

What's your solution?

The Articles of Confederation weren't so bad...

 

[Madison320]

The Articles of Confederation weren't so bad...

What is it about the Articles of Confederation that you like more than the Constitution?

One idea I've heard (I think it was from Walter Williams) is that they should've not even had the Bill of Rights. Just a list of things the Federal government can do and that's it. I think the idea is that the bill of rights gave big government a wedge to increase power by adding a bunch of fake rights. Like the right to health care and social security.

My belief is that any voting system that allows the majority of voters to steal from the minority is a massively flawed system. That's why I don't think people on welfare should be allowed to vote. It's a conflict of interest. If you want to vote, don't take welfare.

 

[acptulsa]

What is it about the Articles of Confederation that you like more than the Constitution?

ARTICLE II. Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and
right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

It's an interesting notion. It seems to me that the Tenth Amendment is reasonably clear, but the AoC makes the statement stronger and even more clear.

 

[Ender]

The Articles of Confederation weren't so bad...

Exactly.

This was the foundation for a group of independent states to live in close proximity, have their own laws, & help each other in things like trade or crisis.

The CONstitution was the Hamiltonian coup to make the states into a single country ruled by a powerful central governmental monarchy.

 

[Madison320]

Exactly.

This was the foundation for a group of independent states to live in close proximity, have their own laws, & help each other in things like trade or crisis.

The CONstitution was the Hamiltonian coup to make the states into a single country ruled by a powerful central governmental monarchy.

I agree. The idea is basically to have competing governments. As long as there's just one government in each geographic area.

 

[PAF]

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1577690267024605188

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If agreed upon that is consensual and fine. But if I or you or she or he chooses not to participate or play, taxes are not forcefully collected and that person may freely walk away. They are also free to engage in another consensual agreement, or not.

Hmmm. So Democrats agree to the rules of “Democracy” and voting, and when they don't win, they choose not to participate. Democrats are anarchists!

Interesting to look at the rules analogy with regard to voting. Democrats change rules midstream to benefit themselves. Have they broken the contract, or have they chosen to engage in a new social contract? Voting is a simple and basic consensual contract. What happens when one side doesn’t abide by the results?

 

[PAF]

Hmmm. So Democrats agree to the rules of “Democracy” and voting, and when they don't win, they choose not to participate. Democrats are anarchists!

Interesting to look at the rules analogy with regard to voting. Democrats change rules midstream to benefit themselves. Have they broken the contract, or have they chosen to engage in a new social contract? Voting is a simple and basic consensual contract. What happens when one side doesn’t abide by the results?

Voting is a multi-lateral contract. Let's say 3 people are single-issue voters. One person votes against abortion, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at foreign policy. Another person votes against the MIC, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at subsidies for farmers. A third person votes against funding the Pharm complex, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at funding the MIC. When people cast votes and the candidates are narrowed down, eventually leading to 1 winner, how is everybody individually represented?

The game is futile. Certainly voting has gone on for a very long time and people are conditioned that it is a duty, responsibility, patriotic even, but all people really do when they vote is transfer their power and wealth to other people and "the system".

Play the game and vote, then stop complaining when things don't go your way. Be thrilled that your side won, and accept the fact that others who vote, even in your own party, may have different views or objectives than you. An example is that while you and I may object to funding the MIC and nation-building overseas, there are many in-your-own-party who rely on those everyday jobs and will vote accordingly.

I do not vote because I do not consent. I do call representatives, both R and D, to express my concern about issues. When I call the Democrat line, I simply tell them that I am a constituent [adj: component] in the state, never letting on that I do not vote. Same thing when I call the Republican line.

 

[Anti Federalist]

///

 

[PAF]

Voting is a multi-lateral contract. Let's say 3 people are single-issue voters. One person votes against abortion, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at foreign policy. Another person votes against the MIC, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at subsidies for farmers. A third person votes against funding the Pharm complex, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at funding the MIC. When people cast votes and the candidates are narrowed down, eventually leading to 1 winner, how is everybody individually represented?

The game is futile. Certainly voting has gone on for a very long time and people are conditioned that it is a duty, responsibility, patriotic even, but all people really do when they vote is transfer their power and wealth to other people and "the system".

Play the game and vote, then stop complaining when things don't go your way. Be thrilled that your side won, and accept the fact that others who vote, even in your own party, may have different views or objectives than you. An example is that while you and I may object to funding the MIC and nation-building overseas, there are many in-your-own-party who rely on those everyday jobs and will vote accordingly.

I do not vote because I do not consent. I do call representatives, both R and D, to express my concern about issues. When I call the Democrat line, I simply tell them that I am a constituent [adj: component] in the state, never letting on that I do not vote. Same thing when I call the Republican line.

Bump.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The articles of confederation are not so different from the constitution. You can lay them side by side in a word processor - with appropriate spacing between missing things, and see where large chunks from both are similar to each other. You can also make the argument the articles of confederation are still in effect, and the constitution was just a treaty between states so ratifying it - treaty making between states was one thing the constitution restricted more - perhaps in a self interested way in recognition to how it was constructed.

That theory isn't easily ignored, because the establishment is still trying - ever more frequently, to subvert the constitution to what amounts to treaties between states - illegally, as opposed to amendments. It is still occurring. The latest attempt at subverting the electoral college is an example. Likewise all the attempts to claim that the country can sign away powers by treaty, or get rid of the necessity of declaring war by treaty are examples. The constitution itself may be an early example of this.

It probably is too early to say "repeal the constitution" - and bring back the articles of confederation to full power, and unshackled by other agreements - without a lot of blank stares. Nevertheless, I think this has more historical truth to it than given credit, as well as being true to present attempts to do such things today.

fyi - I was going to post a quote from the 1776 constitution of Pennsylvania on this thread for a different topic, but decided against it. I can't help thinking it is a lot more precise about many things, so here is a link to it: https://www.paconstitution.org/texts-of-the-constitution/1776-2/

 

[TheCount]

Why would a net taxpayer voting system be an oligarchy?

Because in that system, voters get to decide who is a voter.

 

[LibertyEagle]

In any human polity - libertarian or otherwise - there will always be rules of some kind, and so also of course the application of those rules. [1]

Thus, there will always be appliers of those rules (i.e., "rulers") - whether they be called "princes" or "presidents" or "CEOs of private security firms" or what-have-you. Even under a voluntaryist polity, there will necessarily be systems and networks of collectively cooperative deference that will result in a hierarchy of such "rulers" [2]. (That they may not be explicitly identified or thought of as "rulers" is a matter of semantics and narrative framing.)



Sadly, that day will never come.

At an absolute minimum, there will always be at least some number of sociopathic types who have no compunctions when it comes to violating the rules (whatever the rules might be, including the NAP). And even beyond those, there will always be non-sociopaths who will nevertheless support (or at least not oppose) aggression - because [reasons (e.g., "it's for the children")].

Fortunately, the achievement and maintenance of a libertarian polity does not require that "every single person accepts and lives by the NAP". Indeed, it does not even require that a majority does so - or even a plurality. for that matter. It only requires that enough people do so (however much that might be [3]). More specifically, it requires that enough of the right people in the right positions - enough of the aforementioned "appliers of rules", in other words - do so. Under those circumstances, the question of whether Joe Rando is a believer in the NAP or not becomes irrelevant, or at most secondary.



[1] In fact, it is the nature and substance of those rules which determine whether (and to what extent) a given polity can be deemed to be "libertarian or otherwise" in the first place.

[2] To invoke an analogy used earlier in this thread, even in a voluntaryist game of "pick up" baseball, the umpire (i.e., "ruler") must necessarily be deferred to by all the players if the game is to occur or continue - even when (or rather, especially when) some of them think his strike zone is too big or too small.

[3] Ante facto, there is no way of knowing what this quantity is, and it will surely vary widely according to time, place, and other contingent factors.

If that was likely, we wouldn't have gotten in this mess we are in. I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said, Let no more be said about faith in man, but bind him down from mischief with the hands of the Constitution. We didn't enforce it. So, w/out it, we would just be counting on a few good well-placed people? How do you think that would work out any better?

 

[TheTexan]

The game is futile. Certainly voting has gone on for a very long time and people are conditioned that it is a duty, responsibility, patriotic even, but all people really do when they vote is transfer their power and wealth to other people and "the system".

Correct, the main purpose of voting is to grant legitimacy to a system that is inherently illegitimate.

 

[Krugminator2]

What's most interesting about anarchy is it is proposed primarily by individualists but would result in a collectivism worse than Communism. Fidel Casto's Cuba was probably freer than Somalia.

There would be no trade, at least not in the way it happens now. Objective laws with a court system to settle disputes and punish fraud are necessary for people who don't know each other to transact on a large scale. The law provides a level of trust. You could have small scale trade like you see on Amazon or eBay or like you had on Silk Road but no one would risk large amounts of money with no legal protection. You would have a situation like how drug dealers operate now, where if there is a problem they solve disputes by killing each other.

That's the funny thing about anarchism. It opposes government because it is violent for having laws. But anarchism is inherently violent. It reduces people to acting on the level of an ape where people form gangs and the most violent and vicious will survive.

You can be "free" in anarchist Somalia where you will live to be 45. Or you can live to be 90 under the "tyranny" of Singapore where everything is neat and clean and there is no crime.

Average lifespan Somali - 57.4
Average lifespan Singapore -83.5

Somalia per capita income- $446
Singapore per capita income. - $72,794

 

[Occam's Banana]

If that was likely, we wouldn't have gotten in this mess we are in.

I didn't say it was likely.

It might be, but in fact, it is entirely possible - perhaps even probable - that it is unlikely.

Fortunately, though, "unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

"It is possible that we may lose. It is impossible that we must lose." -- Michael Malice
​

I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said, Let no more be said about faith in man, [...]

I agree with TJ about that, too - and I certainly don't endorse putting any "faith in man". (My view of man is tragic, not utopian.)

All "appliers of rules" should always be regarded with a wary and gimlet eye.

But "appliers of rules" will always exist in some form or another, and they cannot be dispensed with.

[...] but bind him down from mischief with the hands of the Constitution. We didn't enforce it.

But who, exactly, will "bind him down"? Who, exactly, will supply those "hands"? Who is the "we" who could have enforced it?

There must necessarily be some particular persons in the right positions to be able to effectuate those things - not just some vague, general "we".

So, w/out it, we would just be counting on a few good well-placed people? How do you think that would work out any better?

If you do not have at least "a few good well-placed people" (such as Ron Paul, for one example) when and where it really matters (and with the ability to apply their will effectively), then you are inevitably going to end up exactly where we find ourselves now - namely, at the mercy of bad but well-placed people. It matters nothing that a lot of people might "support" or agree with a thing if none of them have the position and power necessary to actually and effectively do anything about it.

But if you do have enough people with the requisite position and power, then you don't necessarily need the support of a lot of people - certainly not the support of "all people", nor even of "most people". Recall that my remarks on this matter were made in the context of Anti Federalist's lament for a "day [...] when every single person accepts and lives by the NAP" (underline emphasis added). Unfortunately, such a day is never going to come. Fortunately, though, it doesn't need to. All that is required is enough people - however much that might be - who are willing to enforce the NAP (or the Constitution, if you prefer - the point remains the same, either way) and who have sufficient power and position to do so effectively. Under those circumstances, "most people" simply won't matter for that purpose.

This dynamic is always and everywhere in effect, regardless of whether we're talking about mass democracies, or constitutional republics, or absolute monarchies, or communist dictatorships - or even ostensibly "rulerless" anarchies. IOW: Majorities are nice to have, if and when you can get them, but when it comes right down to it, minorities lead and majorities follow - and even within any minority, there are leaders and there are followers (the former being the "appliers of rules" with whom my first post in this thread was concerned). For example, neither American nor Bolshevik revolutionaries were majorities in their own countries (and even among their respective minorities, the "appliers of rules" - such as Washington and Lenin - were fewer still).

 

[Madison320]

Because in that system, voters get to decide who is a voter.

That's how it works now. Not everyone is allowed to vote. Criminals, minors and non-citizens for example.

How would you fix the huge problem we have where the majority steals from the minority? I believe one of the biggest problems we have is unequal protection under the law, one of the most flagrant and damaging examples is progressive taxation.

 

[Madison320]

What's most interesting about anarchy is it is proposed primarily by individualists but would result in a collectivism worse than Communism. Fidel Casto's Cuba was probably freer than Somalia.

There would be no trade, at least not in the way it happens now. Objective laws with a court system to settle disputes and punish fraud are necessary for people who don't know each other to transact on a large scale. The law provides a level of trust. You could have small scale trade like you see on Amazon or eBay or like you had on Silk Road but no one would risk large amounts of money with no legal protection. You would have a situation like how drug dealers operate now, where if there is a problem they solve disputes by killing each other.

That's the funny thing about anarchism. It opposes government because it is violent for having laws. But anarchism is inherently violent. It reduces people to acting on the level of an ape where people form gangs and the most violent and vicious will survive.

You can be "free" in anarchist Somalia where you will live to be 45. Or you can live to be 90 under the "tyranny" of Singapore where everything is neat and clean and there is no crime.

Average lifespan Somali - 57.4
Average lifespan Singapore -83.5

Somalia per capita income- $446
Singapore per capita income. - $72,794

I was at a park and talking to this guy who recently came from Somalia. He was talking about how great it is here that we can walk around safely in public. He said "If you were in Somalia we'd be figuring out how to rob you and you wouldn't make it 100 yards." It was kinda weird the matter of fact way he said "we" like that's just what everybody does there.

My main argument against anarchy is that there's no such thing. Even in Somalia you've got warlords. They're ruling you with force so that's still government. So your best course of action is to create the best government you can.

But I also agree with you that peaceful people need government to resolve disputes. If you're a CEO figuring out where to locate your factory, Somalia is not your first choice.

If you look at one of those websites where they rank economic freedom, you can order countries by the various factors that they use for the ranking like taxation level, size of government, regulations, etc. I always thought size of government would be the most important factor but it's not. By far the strongest correlation that makes a country desirable is rule of law. There is a correlation with size of government, smaller being better obviously, but it's weak compared to rule of law. I was actually disappointed when I first saw that many years ago but it is what it is.

If anarchies were really superior they'd be breaking out all over the place.

 

[Anti Federalist]

What's most interesting about anarchy is it is proposed primarily by individualists but would result in a collectivism worse than Communism. Fidel Casto's Cuba was probably freer than Somalia.

There would be no trade, at least not in the way it happens now. Objective laws with a court system to settle disputes and punish fraud are necessary for people who don't know each other to transact on a large scale. The law provides a level of trust. You could have small scale trade like you see on Amazon or eBay or like you had on Silk Road but no one would risk large amounts of money with no legal protection. You would have a situation like how drug dealers operate now, where if there is a problem they solve disputes by killing each other.

That's the funny thing about anarchism. It opposes government because it is violent for having laws. But anarchism is inherently violent. It reduces people to acting on the level of an ape where people form gangs and the most violent and vicious will survive.

You can be "free" in anarchist Somalia where you will live to be 45. Or you can live to be 90 under the "tyranny" of Singapore where everything is neat and clean and there is no crime.

Average lifespan Somali - 57.4
Average lifespan Singapore -83.5

Somalia per capita income- $446
Singapore per capita income. - $72,794

Freedom is messy, without a doubt.

Animals in captivity, in a zoo, routinely live longer than those in the wild.

Life in a cage, even in a gilded, safe, comfortable cage, is not life...not for a free man anyway.

I think what Western Civilization created and culminated here, with our founding documents, strikes the best possible balance the world has ever seen.

Which is why I am no hurry to burn it all down, but I am willing to fight to protect or to separate it from the people or peoples, that are actively trying to destroy it.