To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[CCTelander]

It's interesting when someone claims that there is a question someone can't answer, and then they proceed not to ask any questions but rather illustrate their own views. To me, it demonstrates a clear lack of interest in honest discourse.

Yep. See: the OP

Yep just another big, steaming pile of the same old shit. Who would have figured?

 

[CCTelander]

Another? It seems like the same crew making the same accusations again and again and again.

Pretty much. But when you only know ONE trick...

 

[Paul Fan]

This is the problem here...Ron Paul isn't doing enough to help people understand how the invisible hand works.

You just *think* every single government function can be done better by a private entity...but you can't possibly *know* it to be true. This is the Hayek's concept of partial knowledge. You, me and everybody else...we all only have partial knowledge. You sure wouldn't know it though from reading this thread.

Part of the answer is in your hand, part of the answer is in my hand...and all these partial answers are held by the invisible hand. If it's true that every single government function can be done better by a private entity then taxpayers will boycott government organizations one by one out of existence.

Most of them won't do it because they hate the government...they'll just do it because they want to get the most bang for the buck. If they get the most bank for their buck paying the private sector for A, B, C then they won't pay the public sector for A, B, C.

Yes...the more people that fund the IRS...the more money the IRS will have to force you to pay taxes. What about your theory though? You say that every single government function can be better done by a private entity...so why would people voluntarily choose to fund the IRS? Wouldn't you just tell them about the private sector equivalent of the IRS? You know...the one that relies on the power of persuasion...rather than coercion...to encourage people to contribute to the common good.

Allowing people to choose which government organizations receive their taxes will highlight private sector supply failures. It will indicate a demand for a good/service for which there are no suppliers in the private sector. Therefore...pragmatarianism will offer you a precise road map to anarcho-capitalism. To arrive at anarcho-capitalism your mission will be to create...or promote...private organizations that supply ALL the demands of taxpayers.

Please tell me if I'm understanding correctly: I personally think all government programs are worthless, but others value at least some of those programs. (For example, those who benefit from redistribution tend to value redistributive programs.) When pragmatarianism is instituted, I won't be able to withhold my taxes so long as others choose to fund the IRS; and the net beneficiaries of government funds will fund the IRS in order to keep the gravy train going. So my taxes will be taken by force, and the only 'choice' I'll get is where to allocate them. So I have to allocate my taxes to something that, by definition, I don't like.

Because I'm forced to allocate my money to a government program even though I don't like any of them, the program I choose will get funding - but the program's receipt of my funding doesn't prove that I think the program is valuable, it just proves that I was least annoyed about funding it.

So my question is: how could receipt of my forced tax money indicate any "demand" for that program? In other words, under pragmatarianism, how would anybody distinguish between those programs that people actually considered valuable (eg, because they 'highlighted private sector supply failures'), and those programs that people just thought were the "least bad"?

 

[Sam I am]

Most people are against initiated aggression. The good people will use defensive force to stop the bad. If the bad people outnumber the good people, the negative effects are multiplied when only the coercive monopoly can defend themselves. So even if you really think people are that barbaric and determined to steal and murder people, having a State will make it worse.

In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. - Murray Rothbard



I probably wouldn't personally use violence unless my life was in danger. If someone kept stealing fruit from my garden, I would have my insurance agency gather evidence and take them to court. BUT THAT SOUNDS LIKE WAR BECAUSE HIS AGENCY WOULD FIGHT YOU DUH HAHAHAHA (CLICK HERE)

WTF HOW WOUDL COURTS WORK< R U SERIOUS? in 3.....2....CLICK HERE

But courts would be crooked and only serve teh rich in 3....2...CLICK HERE

So, Now this Non-government of yours has courts. And it has a militia or a group of mercenaries or something that will enforce the rule of the courts.

 

[Sam I am]

The point that I'm trying to make is that Government will happen. Even if it doesn't come from an external source.

In a world where some people are good to each-other, and others are mostly selfish, and when sometimes, even the good people will have disputes between each-other, the good people will group up and they will force out the bad.

Sometimes the good people will have disputes with one-another since not everybody's interests will always be the same, and those people will form rules, by which to settle disputes, and they will enforce these rules.

In order to effectively enforce such rules, they will generally have to live near one another, and you'll have large area's of land, who's inhabitants live by and enforce a certain set of laws.

You can call such a system whatever you like, but a Government by any other name is still a government.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Yes, when they interfere with your "Universal truths" , you claim that you will impose your "universal truths" upon them.

What defines "Universal truths" anyway? Is it just what you feel they ought to be, or is it something that people have agreed to? What if not everyone agrees?

That everyone does not agree with a universal truth does not obviate that truth.

Interesting that you should use the word, "cooperation"; the word implies voluntary, mutual consent as opposed to forced or coerced participation. Individuals have a right to life because individuals are objectively, observably distinct and sovereign - no one else can think with my mind, nor feel with my heart, nor speak with my tongue. While it is true that life prospers with the cooperation of other individuals, it is not true that life in and of itself depends upon the cooperation of others (speaking simply, here, of course). To deny the sovereignty of other individuals is to deny one's own sovereignty, which is a logical paradox.

If life is objectively a right, then the fruits of one's life (property) is also a right. The exchange of property between sovereign individuals (and I've seen that you have a twitch when it comes to this phrase - understand, I'm using it to describe human interaction, not as some kind of political movement) must logically be on a basis of voluntary, mutual consent. Individuals have a right to request assistance on a matter (a college education, for instance) but they do not have a right to demand and confiscate property to that end. To deny the sovereignty of other individuals - to deny their right to life and the product of their lives - is to introduce violence and warfare into human society: since humans are observably equal in terms of their humanity (if not their abilities), adopting a philosophy which allows for an individual to take life and property tacitly allows for his own life and property to be taken (warfare).

Are you suggesting that your neighbor wouldn't help me out of fear of violent retribution being applied to him himself?

I'm suggesting that he will likely turn you over, because he'll likely respect the ruling of the arbiter.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The point that I'm trying to make is that Government will happen. Even if it doesn't come from an external source.

In a world where some people are good to each-other, and others are mostly selfish, and when sometimes, even the good people will have disputes between each-other, the good people will group up and they will force out the bad.

Sometimes the good people will have disputes with one-another since not everybody's interests will always be the same, and those people will form rules, by which to settle disputes, and they will enforce these rules.

In order to effectively enforce such rules, they will generally have to live near one another, and you'll have large area's of land, who's inhabitants live by and enforce a certain set of laws.

You can call such a system whatever you like, but a Government by any other name is still a government.

None of us are opposed to "government", when government is voluntary and non-coercive. We oppose the state, which is involuntary, coercive and violent.

This has been made fairly plain in both our posts, our links and videos we've posted.

 

[Sam I am]

That everyone does not agree with a universal truth does not obviate that truth.


I'm suggesting that he will likely turn you over, because he'll likely respect the ruling of the arbiter.

You mean the arbiter telling him who he can or cannot keep on his property?

 

[Wesker1982]

The point that I'm trying to make is that Government will happen. Even if it doesn't come from an external source.

There is a difference between a government, and governance. When we refer to a government, we are assuming a monopoly funded by violence.

What we favor is non-monopolistic and non-violent social organization (you might call this 'governance'). Call it whatever you want, but you are attacking a strawman if you think we are against law and order.

What we oppose is the means of governance to be funded through the initiation of force.

In a world where some people are good to each-other, and others are mostly selfish, and when sometimes, even the good people will have disputes between each-other, the good people will group up and they will force out the bad.

No one is denying this. What we maintain is that it is dangerous to have one single supplier of defense (and immoral since funded through violence), for if the single supplier becomes corrupt, it is more difficult to resist them. What you are saying here is a good reason to advocate non-monopolistic law (polycentric law, etc).

You can call such a system whatever you like, but a Government by any other name is still a government.

Ditch the label government, anarchy, etc. and let the system speaks for itself.

If you want to call non-monopolistic and voluntarily funded means of organization Zoolapookaadoo, then we are Zoolapookadooists.

So, Now this Non-government of yours has courts. And it has a militia or a group of mercenaries or something that will enforce the rule of the courts.

Sure. You could call it dispute resolution or something else since it is different than the courts as we know them right now. The major differences being that they are not funded through the initiation of force and they do not claim an arbitrary territorial monopoly on the provision of dispute resolution.

 

[Sam I am]

None of us are opposed to "government", when government is voluntary and non-coercive. We oppose the state, which is involuntary, coercive and violent.

This has been made fairly plain in both our posts, our links and videos we've posted.

And what's whit this "voluntary" idea anyway? do you haven any idea what the word means?


If someone wrongs you you can either

Force Justice upon him, which is not voluntary at all. at least not for him.

Let him voluntarily choose whether or not he wants to follow your laws, and if he doesn't, just let him go.

 

[Xerographica]

Paul Fan, if people give more money to the IRS...or raise the tax rate from 15% to 25%...will that somehow encourage you to start paying for unemployment benefits?

 

[paulpwns]

To the OP: It doesn't.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

To the OP: It doesn't.

Really? So you have government agents in your house preventing unapproved happenings (anarchy)?

 

[bolil]

Hey HB, what do you think about local police forces? Not that the idea would be mutually exclusive with Rothbard's Privatization, but would supplement it. If a given town wanted to band together and hire a police force much like his example of the hired guard in the business district (given somewhere in FANW). It would be a voluntary tax, agreed to by a town, or at least a majority of members in the town (there is nothing to keep people from forming associations in an anarchist society). Instead of hiring a company, the town is likely to band together and provide private citizens with the means of providing security. There would be nothing to prevent individuals from purchasing their own security, and abstaining from the town citizen-firm- both in service and in protection. It is likely though, that locally, the citizen firm will be better funded and stronger, which is as it should be I believe. Ahhhh, I can swallow private security completely now. My issue lies with the courts. I really don't like the idea of private courts and private prisons. Although public courts and private prisons are even worse. There needs to be a rule of law, a constant much like with money, our constitution provides a damn good one so why not go with it? I would amend it to allow for competing currencies in other commodities such as lithium or even corn/crop based currencies.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Hey HB, what do you think about local police forces? Not that the idea would be mutually exclusive with Rothbard's Privatization, but would supplement it. If a given town wanted to band together and hire a police force much like his example of the hired guard in the business district (given somewhere in FANW). It would be a voluntary tax, agreed to by a town, or at least a majority of members in the town (there is nothing to keep people from forming associations in an anarchist society). Instead of hiring a company, the town is likely to band together and provide private citizens with the means of providing security. There would be nothing to prevent individuals from purchasing their own security, and abstaining from the town citizen-firm. Ahhhh, I can swallow private security completely now. My issue lies with the courts. I really don't like the idea of private courts and private prisons. Although public courts and private prisons are even worse.

Abolish the police or make them funded by donations only and 100% liable for damage they cause.

 

[paulpwns]

Really? So you have government agents in your house preventing unapproved happenings (anarchy)?

let me clarify. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work.

 

[bolil]

yeah dude, Im with you on that. But it is key that they are LOCAL. edit: With HB on police funding, what is voluntary tax but donation?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

let me clarify. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work.

That doesn't make a significant difference.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Hard to expect anything other than strawmen when OP admits he doesn't understand the topic, and isn't interested in learning anything about it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

let me clarify. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work.

What does "work"?