Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[ProIndividual]

Ah...you obviously do not have children...... and yes, they are sovereign - they have exactly the same human rights you do - no more and no less.

I don't think they do. Sure, they may not be harmed or defrauded...but they have no right to leave and move out on their own at 6 years old, to have adult sexual partners (thank God), or to be thrown out the house when you're mad at them at that age.

Sovereign implies the mental and physical ability to govern yourself. Children need governed because of the inherent mental and physical deficiences of childhood. They aren't veru bright, often hurt themselves therefore, and need coerced into safer outcomes until they learn. You can say they have natural rights...for sure...but to call a parent who is not violent but is coercive for the child's own good a tyrant would be astretch in my opinion. I'm not straw manning, I know you didn't make that argument directly...I'm just pointing out that if your child uses drugs you can physically restrian them from doing so by taking away the drugs...but if you do that to an adult, even your child once they hit adulthood, that governance of others will be tyrannical and unlawful.

Natural law, utilitarianism, and the non-agression principle doesn't fully apply to children in my opinion (except for violence and fraud, of course).

I am open to debate on this issue though...because again I suspect we are getting into semantical disagreement, not consequentialist outcome differences.

They are a commune - as I've already discussed.

They are rarely in the thousands - and those actually are broken down into sub-units.

Good point, but it does show anarcho communism in practice. They also have more economic output due to voluntary economics (and of course the market would have more if voluntary as well) per worker than does normal Israeli workers. They have had up to 20,000 people in one of these things at one time...although they may have collapsed into smaller units since because of the social ostracization problem I mentioned earlier. Good point.

Then you have a different understanding of anarchism than I.

There are no rulers. Period.

Beyond that, anything else can be established.

We must have different understandings if you think a voluntary leader is a ruler....rulers are compulsory. Obviously anything voluntary is allowed in anarchy no matter how detrimental to the voluntary participants. Otherwise we ban coaches on football teams, teachers in classes, sex, boxing...etc. All forms of hierarchy are not "banned" in anarchy...only compulsory hierarchy. Sex is hierarchical, S&M sex is hierarchical and possibility detrimental to you, boxing is detrimental, coaches and teachers are hierarchical and possibly detrimental (depends if you have a yelling coach or believ in unscholling), etc. S&M sex is not equivalent to rape, boxing is not equivalent to assault, coaches and teachers are not tyrants (unless compulsory, obviously), etc.

You cannot say an anarchist world would only contain what you agree with...that's uneforcable w/o a state. All forms of voluntary association must be allowed...no matter how much you and I agree they are stupid, self defeating, detrimental, or abusive. As long as they aren't compulsory, they are compatible with anarchy.

Anarchy is not uniformity. It is not utopian. It is not the answer to all of life's problems. It's the end of coercion beyond that which nature imposes on mankind...the end of humans ruling other humans.

And my understanding of it comes from reading anarchists from different centuries, organizational preferences, and economic tendancies. Hence why I rail for anarchism without adjectives in it's modern forms; panarchist synthesis and panarchism.

Property, like anything else, is optional in anarchism. No one is forced to have property and no one is forced to give it up. If you think it's theft, and associate it with like minded people, then only a state can stop you. If you think property is a right (like we do), and find like minded people to associate with, then no one can stop you w/o a state.

You simply can't think anarchism means world uniformity in law, organizational methods, or economics. That would be a pipe dream...or worse, a recipe for a new state by some other name.

You say POO TA TOES- I say PA TAY TOE.... we are probably pointing generally at the same thing

Yeah

I think we are, mostly. It's semantical difference more than anything. Language is so clumsy when discussing much of anything, especially philosophy.

And, I agree with your statement here.

Yep...we agree...lol. I could of saved myself some typing if I would read that part first...LOL.

 

[ProIndividual]

to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

So we should lose the state then? I mean it does destroy private property by making renters out of land owners via tax...

The aims of this site are not my aims...the aims of this site are a stepping stone on my list of goals. Sure, we are allies on Ron Paul and getting back to a more limited state...but only on the way to abolishing the state. We are allies up to that point...after that if you try to use force to stop us from nonviolently abolishing the state you will be our enemy. But who follows the non-agression principle, is a libertarian, Constitutionalist in favor of "seek[ing] justice, provid[ing] opportunity, and [securing] individual liberty", or otherwise liberty-minded person who would stop us in that non-violent pursuit of liberty?

Answer? No one. Only a tyrant would get in our way...blinded by nationalism and statism.

You'd do well to stop telling us the site's mission statement in the philosophy forum...this is where these types of thoughts belong. And if not, let us know and we can abandon you and your cause where we found it.

 

[Travlyr]

So we should lose the state then?

No. You are shooting at the wrong target.

You have to get rid of the counterfeiters. Counterfeiters are the aggressors. Counterfeiters have to be aggressive to keep their monopoly and control. They hunt competition down and put them in cages.

The State holds my property deed and the property deed of millions upon millions of homeowners. Until someone comes up with an offer of a better way to hold property deeds, then I'm not buying what you are selling.

End the fed. Acquire allodial title to land. End the IRS.

 

[Black Flag]

The State holds my property deed and the property deed of millions upon millions of homeowners. Until someone comes up with an offer of a better way to hold property deeds, then I'm not buying what you are selling.

Of all your posts, this statement is the most rational.

You are right --- and wrong (but not in a bad way).

You are right to be skeptical of any alternative to the status quo, a status quo of which -to you- appears to satisfy a societal need (property rights) -however terribly flawed- that does at least provide some basic order to the issue.

You are wrong in demanding "proof" that the alternative completely satisfies all your goals better then the status quo, since the "proof" can only be tested by implementation and action - thus, you deny access to the proof by demanding that the process to prove such is not allowed.

The way out of the conundrum is intellectual - that is, by adherence to an overreaching and superior principle, and not by merely a measure of "gain or loss" to your personal self or prosperity.

We move forward based on a moral principle and regardless of personal cost - and not by standing firmly in a diseased pool simply because of fear of loss that may come to you by acting.

 

[Travlyr]

Of all your posts, this statement is the most rational.

You are right --- and wrong (but not in a bad way).

You are right to be skeptical of any alternative to the status quo, a status quo of which -to you- appears to satisfy a societal need (property rights) -however terribly flawed- that does at least provide some basic order to the issue.

You are wrong in demanding "proof" that the alternative completely satisfies all your goals better then the status quo, since the "proof" can only be tested by implementation and action - thus, you deny access to the proof by demanding that the process to prove such is not allowed.

The way out of the conundrum is intellectual - that is, by adherence to an overreaching and superior principle, and not by merely a measure of "gain or loss" to your personal self or prosperity.

We move forward based on a moral principle and regardless of personal cost - and not by standing firmly in a diseased pool simply because of fear of loss that may come to you by acting.

From your responses, you could read more carefully for content. I am a self-interested individual. I will always attempt to choose what is best for me. Land ownership provides me with an opportunity to enjoy my life without interference from others, if I so choose. Land ownership requires land law. Land law is based on property rights not the non-aggression principle. Social law, which I don't much care for, can perhaps be based on the NAP. If you have an offer, then put it in writing.

 

[TheTexan]

Land law is based on property rights not the non-aggression principle.

You've got it backwards. Property rights is based on non-aggression principle. Even in this society the only reason we can own land is because of the non-aggression principle. It's the fundamental law of civilization. Land law could not exist without NAP. All of the "good" things that you attribute to government, these are simply things the government does that are consistent with NAP.

All the perversions of land law, such as eminent domain, fee simple, land taxes, this idea they can regulate what you do on your own land, these are all deviations from NAP. Whatever property rights we have left, you can thank NAP for it, not the government.

 

[Travlyr]

You've got it backwards. Property rights is based on non-aggression principle. Even in this society the only reason we can own land is because of the non-aggression principle. It's the fundamental law of civilization. Land law could not exist without NAP. All of the "good" things that you attribute to government, these are simply things the government does that are consistent with NAP.

All the perversions of land law, such as eminent domain, fee simple, land taxes, this idea they can regulate what you do on your own land, these are all deviations from NAP. Whatever property rights we have left, you can thank NAP for it, not the government.

I really wish that were true. I really do.

 

[pcgame]

..

 

[ProIndividual]

I thought that the non-aggression principle was derived from private property rights.
Non aggression principle is the most important private property right. The right to self-ownership.

I'd argue the following:

If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, you have the right to govern yourself. If in the act of self governance you do not harm or defraud any other person, properties, or possessions, then logically all external compulsory government is tyranny.

So, property rights are simply an external extension of your self governance (you govern your property, so to speak). It's not "self ownership" per se, or necessarily. How can I say this? Because although the quote is mine (it's my version), the original concept was from an anti-property anarchist named Benjamin Tucker. If he can see how external government of the nonviolent person is tyranny, then property itself isn't relevant to the concept. In fact, it's our belief in property at all that creates the bias from which we derive the idea of "ownership" of ourselves. We need not own ourselves, or anything else, to believe aggression against us in the absence of our own aggressive actions against others or their possessions (or properties, if you like) is tyranny. All we need is an ethical theory.

The NAP is about deontological ethics, not particular interpretations of it's applications...to property or anything else. You can be antiproperty or pro-property and believe that the NAP is a preferable ethical theory. How? Why? Because neither can exist simultaneously or apart (as societies) in a world where aggression is an acceptable ethical and legal standard. Unfortunately we live in a world that does accept aggression against nonviolent people...it's called the state. That one institution is allowed to violate every ethical rule or consequentialist utilitarian outcome to improve happiness known to man. As long as it exists, neither pro-property or anti-property people who want a non-aggressive world can exist...both are banned from practicing their beliefs by the state (it constantly agresses against both). When the state is gone, both can exist simultaneously via panarchism and panarchist synthesis.

 

[Travlyr]

it's called the state.

Are you referring to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution?

 

[ProIndividual]

No. You are shooting at the wrong target.

You have to get rid of the counterfeiters. Counterfeiters are the aggressors. Counterfeiters have to be aggressive to keep their monopoly and control. They hunt competition down and put them in cages.

The State holds my property deed and the property deed of millions upon millions of homeowners. Until someone comes up with an offer of a better way to hold property deeds, then I'm not buying what you are selling.

End the fed. Acquire allodial title to land. End the IRS.

Watch videos at the bottom of this page.

Ending the FED is an old anarchist cause...since the 1850s (at least) individualist anarchists like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker have railed against the monopoly on money...it's just one of many monopolies the state holds, like police, fire depts, first class mail, defense, welfare, roads, etc....many of which they previously didn't hold a monopoly over but yet still existed as services in the market.

The counterfeiters are just one monopoly of the state we wish to end. They solve one problem, and ending the IRS solves part of another (the ability to tax). But sales taxes, State taxes, and tariffs are also part of that problem (along with duties, liscences, etc...which Milton Friedman argued against better than I ever could). When all "tax" is relegated to donation and user fees (which despite Ron Paul's assertion, gas tax is not an example of a user fee...a toll on a road would be a user fee) then we will have an end to taxation and the state's ability to extort people legally. Afterall...if you resist the extortion they hunt you down, kidnap you, and put you in chains and cages.

The videos will show you how land can be held as property w/o the state...also, there was no state in Somalia and yet property existed via a form of anarchic law (the Xeer, or customary law). Once again, there is no reason to think a market demanded service like law and dispute resolution won't exist when the state's coercive monopoly on it ends. It's like saying food wouldn't exist when the Soviet monopoly on it's production and distribution ended....and many Russians beleived that to be the case based on experience bias.

When slavery existed, and nowhere had it ever been abolished, men asked "who will pick the cotton? Our economy will collapse"....but we didn't realize A) slaves were a more expensive form of labor than wage labor because advances in technology were making paid laborers more productive and slaves were dependent solely on the slave master for food, medicine, housing, etc; and B) that big steel machine would pick cotton at a rate no 20 human slaves could ever contend with, while running on dinosaur juice (fossil fuels), and making slave labor seem in retrospect stupid and a hinderance to advancement.

BUT, if the anarchist (all of whom were abolitionists) would of made these arguments, they'd of been laughed at. It's hard for those in the setting of state coercion to see past their experience bias.

"I saw a monkey ride a bicycle at the circus. I never saw a person or a bear ride a bicycle before. Therefore only monkeys can ride bicycles."

This is essentially the argument of "the state handles property, I never saw a non-state law system handle property, therefore only the state can handle property."

And before you label the Xeer as a bad idea, recognize the difference between this form of common law and the anarchist legal order in the videos. One is what happens when the state collapses, the other is an enlightened transition to statelessness. I'ts like comparing Churches falling down spontaneously to the Enlightenment of the 17th-19th centuries. Also, don't say "Somalia sucks" when Somalia under the state was far worse in nearly every measurable way than Somalia w/o the state (look up "True News Somalia", versions 1 and 2). We have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges to be logical. Statesless Somalia needs to be compared to statist Somalia, not statist America. I'd gamble everything I own (and I gamble for a living BTW) that just as stateless Somalia was better than statist Somalia, so too would be statless America versus statist America.

So, your plan to end major forms of tax and the monopoly on money (legal tender laws, the inability to compete with the state's currency) fits into our plans as anarchists nicely. You just need to work through in your own mind how ending the rest of these monopolies are possible.

And once again...anthropolgists have proven property existed before states existed in human history. The idea property requires a state is ahistorical.

 

[ProIndividual]

Are you referring to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution?

What about "Unfortunately we live in a world that does accept aggression against nonviolent people...it's called the state" made you think I was refering specifically to any form of a state, like the Constitution, or any other state coerced geographically monopolized social contract? I wasn't speaking of any one state in particular.

I'm talking about ALL states, including the Constitution (or at least the state it created...coerced geographically dependent monopolized social contract). If I am not free to live w/o being taxed (extorted), to sign a non-geographic dependent social contract (law in panarchism), or any number of other services the state coercively monopolizes, then I am aggressed against. Again...if I have the mental and physical ability to govern myself, then I have the right to govern myself...and if in that act of self governance I do not harm or defraud any other persons, properties, or possessions, then logically all external compulsory government is TYRANNY.

So all states are tyranny, as they are both compulsory and external, and I am not aggressing against others or their properties/possessions, meaning they have no logical right to govern me AT ALL.