To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ya see. That right there is government. People getting together and deciding what is right for the community and using force to rein in those violating community standards.

rev9

Yes, but it should be qualified as voluntary government. Even simple organizations like churches and businesses have such "governments".

 

[fisharmor]

I cannot understand how anarchy can possibly work.

I'm not quite sure why, but whenever I read these threads fellow anarchists are loathe to offer historical examples.
They exist, and they worked.
Up until the point where a neighboring state committed the atrocities necessary to end statelessness in that area.

I freely admit that this is a flaw in anarchist thought. There doesn't seem to be much attention paid to what to do if a neighboring state invades and systematically murders 40% of your population. All stateless societies met their end at the hands of an aggressive state.

However, I simply don't see how the existence of a fundamental flaw in statism, which spills over into being a flaw in anarchism, means that I should be a good little statist instead.

I don't have an answer for that one problem. Statists don't have an answer for 99% of the problems that the state suffers from.
The choice is clear to me.

"Well, instead of government, we'll have something like government except we just won't call it that"

I'm also not sure why anarchists don't jump on this regularly and repeatedly: nobody is claiming that we don't want government.
Everyone is claiming that we don't want a state.

The Roman Catholic church has a government.
Goldman-Sachs has a government.
Delivery vehicles have government on their fuel injectors.

None of that has to do with the state.

 

[Sam I am]

The principle difference between what advocates of statelessness propose and the state is that interactions are voluntary, and based upon mutual consent. There will be war, there will be violence, there will be all things that exist in human society except there will not be one organization that demands that you belong to it, and demands that you pay it a tribute.

Your OP gave the impression that you were interested in an actual discussion. After your second or third post, it was clear that wasn't the case; but those of us who are agreeable to a stateless philosophy have been down that road before, and we're not discouraged by it.

Okay, so you're saying that in your anarchist society, that If I don't want to be bound by the laws of your voluntary organization I don't have to be, and that I can then freely violate those rules, often at your expense, without the fear of retribution?


And don't tell me that "oh you're not interested in discussion" just because I decide to argue back. There is one person who's been posting in this thread who is actually trying to avoid discussion, and that person is RiseAgainst. Everyone else, including you and me are at least trying to read each-other's posts and present some form of debate.

 

[Paul Fan]

Then you would just boycott the government organizations responsible for tax enforcement.

But my question is, what if I want to boycott *all* government functions because I think every single one would be better done by a private entity.

If I boycott all government agencies, including the IRS, but others choose to fund the IRS, then under pragmatarianism would the IRS stll have the power to extract funds from me by force?

 

[Sam I am]

I'm not quite sure why, but whenever I read these threads fellow anarchists are loathe to offer historical examples.
They exist, and they worked.
Up until the point where a neighboring state committed the atrocities necessary to end statelessness in that area.

I freely admit that this is a flaw in anarchist thought. There doesn't seem to be much attention paid to what to do if a neighboring state invades and systematically murders 40% of your population. All stateless societies met their end at the hands of an aggressive state.

However, I simply don't see how the existence of a fundamental flaw in statism, which spills over into being a flaw in anarchism, means that I should be a good little statist instead.

I don't have an answer for that one problem. Statists don't have an answer for 99% of the problems that the state suffers from.
The choice is clear to me.



I'm also not sure why anarchists don't jump on this regularly and repeatedly: nobody is claiming that we don't want government.
Everyone is claiming that we don't want a state.

The Roman Catholic church has a government.
Goldman-Sachs has a government.
Delivery vehicles have government on their fuel injectors.

None of that has to do with the state.

Okay then. Why is a State worse than a government

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Okay, so you're saying that in your anarchist society, that If I don't want to be bound by the laws of your voluntary organization I don't have to be, and that I can then freely violate those rules, often at your expense, without the fear of retribution?

From another post of mine in this thread:

Agreed, for all intents and purposes - I'm sure you agree that based upon my humanity you do not have the right to kill me just because I am in your home, of course. I would have to be initiating some kind of violence against you. Thus we as logical individuals understand that there are "rules" to human society. And we agree that those rules are not imposed by other human beings arbitrarily, but are self-evident and true at all times and for all human beings.

Unlike our present, statist society, an anarchist society is founded upon objective, observable laws - the right to life, property, etc. These are observable, objective laws. So, yes, you may violate those laws, but no, you may not do so without fear of retribution.

And don't tell me that "oh you're not interested in discussion" just because I decide to argue back. There is one person who's been posting in this thread who is actually trying to avoid discussion, and that person is RiseAgainst. Everyone else, including you and me are at least trying to read each-other's posts and present some form of debate.

You're free to post however you may wish, but some demeanors are more conducive than others to fruitful conversation.

 

[Sam I am]

Unlike our present, statist society, an anarchist society is founded upon objective, observable laws - the right to life, property, etc. These are observable, objective laws. So, yes, you may violate those laws, but no, you may not do so without fear of retribution.

Let's say you had a garden on your property, and I made a habit of walking by and eating the food out of your garden. You imply that I would receive some form of retribution. What form would that retribution take?

 

[Xerographica]

But my question is, what if I want to boycott *all* government functions because I think every single one would be better done by a private entity.

If I boycott all government agencies, including the IRS, but others choose to fund the IRS, then under pragmatarianism would the IRS stll have the power to extract funds from me by force?

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.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Let's say you had a garden on your property, and I made a habit of walking by and eating the food out of your garden. You imply that I would receive some form of retribution. What form would that retribution take?

If having a conversation with you did not give me satisfaction, I would contact the security service I have voluntarily contracted with to deal with property violations, theft, etc. They may contact you or your insurance agency and present you with evidence that you are guilty of having stolen from my property, and request you make me whole. If you refuse, the case would likely be referred to an arbitration agency, reputed for making fair rulings, which both of our insurance agencies agree upon. The case would be heard, a ruling would be made, and if you are found liable you would be required to pay.

If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of the topic, Bob Murphy explains the workings of it in fine detail, here:

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You just *think* every single government function can be done better by a private entity...

It doesn't matter if it can be done "better". It WILL be a more just system, by definition.

 

[RiseAgainst]

It doesn't matter if it can be done "better". It WILL be a more just system, by definition.

And this will forever be the barrier to communication with Xero. He is a utilitarian to the utmost, he cares not for justice, ethics or morality, but simply for results. Like a capitalist with a sacred cost/benefit analysis, the brutal and violent force of the state on a peaceful individual is but a mere factor in the equation, no more or less important than any other variable excepting if it provides the desired end result.

 

[Sam I am]

If having a conversation with you did not give me satisfaction, I would contact the security service I have voluntarily contracted with to deal with property violations, theft, etc. They may contact you or your insurance agency and present you with evidence that you are guilty of having stolen from my property, and request you make me whole. If you refuse, the case would likely be referred to an arbitration agency, reputed for making fair rulings, which both of our insurance agencies agree upon. The case would be heard, a ruling would be made, and if you are found liable you would be required to pay.

If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of the topic, Bob Murphy explains the workings of it in fine detail, here:

Meh, fuck that. Why do I have to play by your rules? I'm going to ignore your security service and your arbitration agency and pay you nothing

also: I can't listen to your video right now, as I won't have access to any audio for another 2 hours

 

[Sam I am]

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.

Xerographica Is clearly in favor of a fair and equal system. He sees how a minority of particularly cunning and rich people can take advantage of loopholes in the law. The solution he's come up with is to make those loopholes so big that even the common man can step through with ease.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Meh, fuck that. Why do I have to play by your rules? I'm going to ignore your security service and your arbitration agency and pay you nothing

also: I can't listen to your video right now, as I won't have access to any audio for another 2 hours

Why should I have to play by your rules either? Keep your government to yourself and we won't have to have these sort of discussions.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Meh, fuck that. Why do I have to play by your rules? I'm going to ignore your security service and your arbitration agency and pay you nothing

If you reject the ruling of the arbitration, you may appeal to another arbiter; but it sounds like you just want to play tough guy, and you're going to reject any ruling by any agency. So, in that case, I'm either going to instruct my security agency to reclaim my property from you, which since everyone else in society will have seen that you have chosen to reject a fair arbitration I would be comfortable in doing so, or I am going to decide to cut my losses and move on.

Try listening to Murphy for a few minutes from the 14:00 mark of the video. He does a fine job of fleshing out that which you are alluding to.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If you reject the ruling of the arbitration, you may appeal to another arbiter; but it sounds like you just want to play tough guy, and you're going to reject any ruling by any agency. So, in that case, I'm either going to instruct my security agency to reclaim my property from you, which since everyone else in society will have seen that you have chosen to reject a fair arbitration I would be comfortable in doing so, or I am going to decide to cut my losses and move on.

Try listening to Murphy for a few minutes from the 14:00 mark of the video. He does a fine job of fleshing out that which you are alluding to.

But...if he does that he'll have to think of a counter-argument! oh noes!

 

[RiseAgainst]

Xerographica Is clearly in favor of a fair and equal system. He sees how a minority of particularly cunning and rich people can take advantage of loopholes in the law. The solution he's come up with is to make those loopholes so big that even the common man can step through with ease.

And so now we get to the crux of the problem. You, as with Xero, have no objection to the use of violence so long as the ends achieved are agreeable to you? If this is true, there is nothing to discuss. So long as you advocate the use of violence against individuals, you have no interest in establishing an ethic for the peaceful interaction of humans. Only in finding the quickest path to the satisfaction of your own wants.

 

[tttppp]

Just curious, I haven't heard anyone else address this. If you had to choose, would you rather have the government we have today, or would you rather have complete anarchy?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just curious, I haven't heard anyone else address this. If you had to choose, would you rather have the government we have today, or would you rather have complete anarchy?

Neither. I'd associate with people I trust and form my own government.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

And so now we get to the crux of the problem. You, as with Xero, have no objection to the use of violence so long as the ends achieved are agreeable to you? If this is true, there is nothing to discuss. So long as you advocate the use of violence against individuals, you have no interest in establishing an ethic for the peaceful interaction of humans. Only in finding the quickest path to the satisfaction of your own wants.

You know, that's pretty well said, I'm afraid. It alludes to the fact that what we as advocates of statelessness are interested in is as you said, "an ethic for the peaceful interaction of humans." I like that very much... I'm going to have to borrow that.