To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[Revolution9]

To elaborate a bit on this... Motivations and preferences are a consequence of the self, and are always inherently selfish. There is no such thing as a completely unselfish motivation or an unselfish preference, because the source of such things, is the self.
[/COLOR]

There is self to take care of. That is not selfishness but practically a duty. Then there is selfishness with no empathy. The lack of empathy in certain individuals is why the rest of the folks want a restrainer that works against them as often as is possible without effing up their lives. The balance is off right now but there is no way that tossing it all out the window for private and quite corruptible and unanswerable to any jurisdiction thugs on a bought and paid for mission. The Sherriff and the law of the land is the best answer under current conditions and populace.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

"I'm too lazy to educate myself so instead I'll run into a forum and demand other people tell me what I can readily find on my own. I'll shout a few of the same old tired lines of flawed logic and triumphantly shout that I've severed the head of the anarchy beast having never once even educated myself on the subject, and if people don't give me dissertation level responses to my off the cuff accusations I will declare myself victorious."

Clearly your intent here was a polite and intelligent discourse on a deep philosophical issue, no ulterior motive at all.

You have provided knee jerk reactions and answered none of the thought experiments I put forth. You fail. And your collective wonders why I smack the backslappers about and do it with their own philosophy.

Rev9

 

[RiseAgainst]

You have provided knee jerk reactions and answered none of the thought experiments I put forth. You fail. And your collective wonders why I smack the backslappers about and do it with their own philosophy.

Rev9

You are quite the philosopher in your own mind. You've done nothing but throw up the same old tired state supporting rhetoric those with weak minds and weak wills have spewed for generations, simply more justification for the violence.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

To elaborate a bit on this... Motivations and preferences are a consequence of the self, and are always inherently selfish. There is no such thing as a completely unselfish motivation or an unselfish preference, because the source of such things, is the self.
[/COLOR]

The word "selfish" has been tainted over the years, sadly. In our time, the better phrase is "rational self-interest".

 

[Wesker1982]

It's in their economic self interest to pillage and steal. the peaceful "services" won't stand a chance.

Yeah, that is why Pizza Hut is responsible for so many drive by shootings, lol. Oh, wait, that is because the government outlaws it, right? It is not because it is a bad business plan?

I made the mistake of thinking you were actually interested in discussion. The material and threads that have debunked your objections ad nauseam are available to you if you want them. But it looks like your Stockholm Syndrome for violent monopolies (care to debunk the economic calculation problem,btw?) has gotten the best of you.

 

[Travlyr]

There is one question that anarchists (no rulers) can't answer. Land ownership requires rulers. Either self-rule where each landowner is the ruler such as kingdom, dictatorship, oligarchy, or collective ruler where everybody gets together and makes laws of the land. No matter what, land ownership requires rules and rulers = government.

Anarchists will dance around that issue until the end of time.

 

[ClayTrainor]

There is self to take care of. That is not selfishness but practically a duty. Then there is selfishness with no empathy. The lack of empathy in certain individuals is why the rest of the folks want a restrainer that works against them as often as is possible without effing up their lives.

I certainly agree that some people lack empathy, and I, like you, would also like to have organizations set up to prevent them from doing harm to others, and/or hold them accountable to their actions when their lack of empathy leads them to commit an act of aggression against another person.

The balance is off right now but there is no way that tossing it all out the window for private and quite corruptible and unanswerable to any jurisdiction thugs on a bought and paid for mission. The Sherriff and the law of the land is the best answer under current conditions and populace.

Rev9

The reality is that the state does not solve the problem you have illustrated, it actually exacerbates it. Of course there would still be corruption and violence in the absence of a state, but the point that anarchists like myself are trying to make clear, is that we should not institutionalize and legitimize such behaviour. We ought to regulate against it to the greatest possible extent.

I have no problem with the "law of the land", if you are referring to something along the lines of Natural Law, and wish to set up organizations to prevent things like the initiation of acts of violence, theft, fraud, etc. I have a problem if you want to grant some people the right to initiate the use of force, theft and fraud on other people.

The State, as it exists today, by it's very nature comes into existence and sustains itself through the initiation of acts of violence, theft and fraud. Due to this, It attracts those who lack empathy and wish to impose their views through the use of force. That's why tyrannical Baby Killers like Obama, Bush, Hitler, Stalin, Mubarrak, etc. etc. et. always seem to make it to the top of the pyramid, while those who truly empathize with the victims, like you and me, do not.

We are better people than that. We don't wish to impose violence on others, because we have empathy.

 

[Revolution9]

You are quite the philosopher in your own mind. You've done nothing but throw up the same old tired state supporting rhetoric those with weak minds and weak wills have spewed for generations, simply more justification for the violence.

Dissect my thought experiments or STFU with the childish rhetoric that only tends to point out what watery sand you stand on. The system you advocate has violence built into it in reality as you never factor gangs, psychos and those who will to power into your illusionary utopia where mommy can't tell you to go to bed and everybody is nice. Just the attitude of the backslapper contingent tells me week one there is gonna be some knock down drag outs and they will be wondering WTF hit them. First time you argue like this with some redneck he is gonna tear yer head off. Go to your local truck stop and knock yerself out with yer argument...literally. . It is only in your mind that refuses to takes the facts of raw reality into play that makes you believe that you can have a society without having a society. That you can have law without having law. That any clown can just be a security service. Did you not see what Gingrich's security goon did to a Paul supporters foot. There is yer frikkin' private security in real life. Yer philosophy has not a leg to stand on without bogus appeals to authority or ignoring the facts on the ground. Or you end up with a simile of government that you don't call by that name but it is still the same thing. Now refute me. And not with your trite BS gambits you backslappers always pull with pie in the sky communities, ignoring standard definitions of words and systems or simply not answering any adroit criticism of your mental gymnastic failures..

Rev9

 

[Wesker1982]

Anarchists will dance around that issue until the end of time.

In a laissez-faire society, there would be no government to pre-empt the field of registering deeds. Businesses in a free market would take over this function, since it is a salable service. These companies would keep records of titles and would probably offer the additional service of title insurance (a service already offered by specialized insurance companies today). Title insurance protects the insured against loss resulting from a defect in the title of the property he buys (as, for example, if the long-lost niece of a deceased former owner shows up and claims the property by inheritance). It would substantially reduce problems of conflicting claims, since title insurance companies would be unlikely to insure a title without first checking to make sure there was no conflict. In a free society, title insurance might also protect the insured against loss of his property due to aggression or fraud committed against him. In this case, the aggressor would be dealt with in the same manner as would any other aggressor (a subject which will be covered in Chapters 9 and 10).

There would probably be a plurality of companies competing in the field of title registration and insurance, so they would no doubt find it in their interest to maintain a computerized central listing of titles in the same way that other agencies now keep extensive files on the credit rating of consumers. In this way, they would be in the same relationship of cooperative competition as are present-day insurance companies.

Because they would have competition, title insurance companies would have to be extremely careful to maintain a good business reputation. No honest person would jeopardize the value of his property by registering it with a company which had a reputation for dishonest dealing. If he made use of a shady company, other individuals and firms would have doubts about the validity of his title and would be reluctant to buy his property or to loan money on it. In a totally free market, companies would usually act honestly because it would be in their interest to do so. (The question of dishonest companies will be dealt with in Chapter 11.)- The Market For Liberty

Title Registry

In market anarchy, who would define property rights? If someone hands over the money to purchase a house, what guarantees does he have?

This is a complex issue, and I won’t be able to give specifics, since the actual market solution would depend on the circumstances of the case and would draw on the legal expertise (far greater than mine) of the entire community.23* I can, however, offer some general remarks.

Whatever (if any) the abstract or metaphysical nature of property law, the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian; they are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other. Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles, either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex, hierarchical web of such firms.

The fear of rogue agencies, unilaterally declaring themselves “owner” of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More important,competition between firms would provide true “checks and balances.” If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions. -Bob Murphy

 

[Revolution9]

The reality is that the state does not solve the problem you have illustrated, it actually exacerbates it.

Prove it. And do not point at a corrupt Sherriff. Use the principles and oaths they are under in performance of their community duties. If you do choose the bogus route of a corrupt Sherriff all that will do is bolster my argument that your system has no checks and balances when one is corrupt and can wield power over others such as in your vaunted private security to protect my private property. Once you introduce checks and balances you have government. You keep prattling on about state. What is this entity you speak of? The Soviet Union? Georgia? Tonga? The Navajo Nation? All of these have governments. They are all not states. So your argument against mine is moot and you include only one category of government. By definition Anarchy would be the absence of government. State being one type of government.

rev9

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Dissect my thought experiments or STFU with the childish rhetoric that only tends to point out what watery sand you stand on. The system you advocate has violence built into it in reality as you never factor gangs, psychos and those who will to power into your illusionary utopia where mommy can't tell you to go to bed and everybody is nice. Just the attitude of the backslapper contingent tells me week one there is gonna be some knock down drag outs and they will be wondering WTF hit them. First time you argue like this with some redneck he is gonna tear yer head off. Go to your local truck stop and knock yerself out with yer argument...literally. . It is only in your mind that refuses to takes the facts of raw reality into play that makes you believe that you can have a society without having a society. That you can have law without having law. That any clown can just be a security service. Did you not see what Gingrich's security goon did to a Paul supporters foot. There is yer frikkin' private security in real life. Yer philosophy has not a leg to stand on without bogus appeals to authority or ignoring the facts on the ground. Or you end up with a simile of government that you don't call by that name but it is still the same thing. Now refute me. And not with your trite BS gambits you backslappers always pull with pie in the sky communities, ignoring standard definitions of words and systems or simply not answering any adroit criticism of your mental gymnastic failures..

Rev9

If what you say were true, there would be no spontaneous order, and no free market.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Prove it.

Ummmm... The War on Drugs, the War on Terror... need I continue?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Prove it. And do not point at a corrupt Sherriff. Use the principles and oaths they are under in performance of their community duties. If you do choose the bogus route of a corrupt Sherriff all that will do is bolster my argument that your system has no checks and balances when one is corrupt and can wield power over others such as in your vaunted private security to protect my private property. Once you introduce checks and balances you have government. You keep prattling on about state. What is this entity you speak of? The Soviet Union? Georgia? Tonga? The Navajo Nation? All of these have governments. They are all not states. So your argument against mine is moot and you include only one category of government. By definition Anarchy would be the absence of government. State being one type of government.

rev9

I've already explained this to you a few times, but here we go again.

A state is an organized political community, living under a government.[SUP][1][/SUP] States may be sovereign. Many states are federated stateswhich participate in a federal union.[SUP][1][/SUP] Some states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state.[SUP][2][/SUP] The state can also be used to refer to the secular branches of government within a state, often as a manner of contrasting them with churches and civilian institutions (civil society).

Ask Hillary Clinton which "State" she is secretary of.

 

[ClayTrainor]

There is one question that anarchists (no rulers) can't answer

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.

 

[Wesker1982]

To me, it demonstrates a clear lack of interest in honest discourse.

Yep. See: the OP

 

[Sam I am]

You are quite the philosopher in your own mind. You've done nothing but throw up the same old tired state supporting rhetoric those with weak minds and weak wills have spewed for generations, simply more justification for the violence.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

 

[Sam I am]

Yeah, that is why Pizza Hut is responsible for so many drive by shootings, lol. Oh, wait, that is because the government outlaws it, right? It is not because it is a bad business plan?

I made the mistake of thinking you were actually interested in discussion. The material and threads that have debunked your objections ad nauseam are available to you if you want them. But it looks like your Stockholm Syndrome for violent monopolies (care to debunk the economic calculation problem,btw?) has gotten the best of you.

Pizza hut is not a group of mercenaries.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The only two pertinent questions are:

1) Is anarchy a moral position?
- Yes. It is the only moral position for libertarians, and for that matter Civilization.

2) Does anarchy perform better the functions normally associated with the State and or Government.
- Yes. If you happen to have consequentialist questions read David Friedman, Randy Barnett, or Bruce Benson. All amazing law professors.

Here's a long list to get you started. I'm not going to get into another pissing match when the available material is readily at hand. These types of discussions aren't meant for 200 word (if that) forum posts. I would also posit to you that you should have to take the case why the State is:

1) Moral
2) A better performer for the functions normally associated to it. Then further elaborate why a monopoly is preferable to competition.


Addendum: Voluntaryist material -- http://opendata.socrata.com/Education/Analytical-Anarchism-Literature/bggg-qpgz

 

[otherone]

The only two pertinent questions are:

1) Moral
2) A better performer for the functions normally associated to it. Then further elaborate why a monopoly is preferable to competition.

3) possible?
4) natural?
5) desirable?

How do you force responsibility on those who 'prefer' a nanny state? How do you quell tribalism/nationalism as it rears it's ugly head? Isn't our natural inclination towards collectivism the real problem?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

LOL this thread is ridiculous. It seriously has it all. Xerographica essentially starting a new "pragmatarianism" thread in the middle of someone's topic cumulating with some Hearty Pirate Backslappery and just a dash of Land Laws.