To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[Xerographica]

Yes. So long as an organization uses force to fund itself, or to gain compliance, it is part of the 'rape'. You can spray your perfume on before you rape people, but you still advocate their rape.

So the EPA and the DMV and the FDA and the DoD and the IRS are all equally guilty of 'raping' you?

 

[Xerographica]

But isn`t/wasn`t Afghanistan ruled by bloody ruthless warlords?

Well...one person's "warlord" is another person's "protection agency". The point is...no single organization has a monopoly on the use of force.

 

[RiseAgainst]

So the EPA and the DMV and the FDA and the DoD and the IRS are all equally guilty of 'raping' you?

/sigh

I understand not how the most basic of concepts escapes your ability to comprehend. I am sorry that I cannot use a crayon to draw this out for you, but perhaps if I speak very slowly you will understand.

Group A sticks a gun in my face and demands that my property be handed over to them upon the threat of violent force.

Group A then goes and distributes this property to Groups B, C, D, E, F and G.

or;

Group A then asks me which of Groups B, C, D, E, F or G I would like my stolen property to go to.


In neither scenario does the violence of Group As initial act become magically altered to be anything other than the violence it is. I care not for your justifications for such a system of institutional violence.

 

[Sam I am]

The word alone causes a lot of confusion. I would say the best way to describe them is that they support a non-monopolistic voluntarily funded legal order.

The basic idea is that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an monopoly of legalized initiated violence will only make things worse. Everything the State "provides" has and should be produced through voluntary associations.


Violent monopolies are naturally bad from the point of view of the consumer. They are corrupt and inefficient.

Governments as we know them initiate or threaten the use of violence on peaceful individuals in order to exist. This is inherently immoral.

Let's say someone breaks the law, and they do it habitually so you know that they will continue breaking the law. Maybe this is a serious law that they break. Maybe this person is mugging people for money.

how do you intend to prevent this? do you calmly sit down with the mugger and explain to him that what he's doing is wrong? Do you train in a martial art for 20 years to be able to stop this person without harming him?

No, these voluntary associations you speak of will probably have to resort to violence.

They would no longer have the popular support required if the State were abolished through persuasion and education. Questions such as these are answered in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?296399-Anarcho-Capitalist-Reference-List

So in your previous example, you have a community of people who band together to protect themselves from hostile outside forces. or maybe they hire mercenaries or something. who knows.

There's a word for such groups of people. you might have heard it before. that word is "government"

 

[JuicyG]

Well...one person's "warlord" is another person's "protection agency". The point is...no single organization has a monopoly on the use of force.

Maybe so, but problem is that those warlords are effectively replacing state and become just another centralized power with their own lackeys underneath them, so it`s basically a throwback to pyramid power of centralized system which in time could materialize to an ever more complex and advanced centralized state.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Oh noes! Another minarchist who has never read a single thing about anarchy has come along and single-handedly destroyed the entire theory! Whatever will we do?

 

[Sam I am]

Sam I Am,

Are you a two year old? You show up here and demand that your hand be held and you be walked through every aspect of something you admit you know nothing about?

Use your mind and educate yourself.

RiseAgainst,

Are you a year or two old? You show up here and expect other people to make your arguments for you regarding something you haven't proven that you know anything about.

Use your mind and do something for yourself for once.

 

[Xerographica]

RiseAgainst, initially my question to you was..."If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organizations responsible for "rape"?"

Let me try my question again...If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organization that sticks a gun in their face and robs them?

Isn't that the central basis for the libertarian creed? The notion that educated free adults can be trusted with matches... not to mention their bank accounts and votes? If the masses are intrinsically stupid -- sheep -- then the paternalists are right and no future society of maximized freedom will ever be possible. - David Brin, Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism

If you struggle accepting the idea that people are not sheep then please read this article by Paul Bonneau...The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme.

 

[tttppp]

"There's no harm in having 'a little rape'."

Government, or the state, is an institution that is built on the initiation of violent force on innocent individuals.

Government is only like that because of the people running it. If you had competent people in charge, government wouldn't be like that.

 

[Xerographica]

Maybe so, but problem is that those warlords are effectively replacing state and become just another centralized power with their own lackeys underneath them, so it`s basically a throwback to pyramid power of centralized system which in time could materialize to an ever more complex and advanced centralized state.

I'm skeptical...but open minded when it comes to anarcho-capitalism. As a pragmatarian the only thing I advocate is that taxpayers be allowed to directly allocate their taxes. If taxpayers decide to boycott government organizations one by one out of existence then so be it.

 

[Sam I am]

RiseAgainst, initially my question to you was..."If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organizations responsible for "rape"?"

Let me try my question again...If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organizations that sticks a gun in their face and robs them?



If you struggle accepting the idea that people are not sheep then please read this article by Paul Bonneau...The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme.

If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes, they would indeed boycott government organizations that enforce them to pay taxes. They would then just not pay taxes.

 

[Xerographica]

If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes, they would indeed boycott government organizations that enforce them to pay taxes. They would then just not pay taxes.

So then why is RiseAgainst so against allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes?

 

[RiseAgainst]

RiseAgainst, initially my question to you was..."If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organizations responsible for "rape"?"

Let me try my question again...If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organization that sticks a gun in their face and robs them?



If you struggle accepting the idea that people are not sheep then please read this article by Paul Bonneau...The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme.

/sigh

I understand not how the most basic of concepts escapes your ability to comprehend. I am sorry that I cannot use a crayon to draw this out for you, but perhaps if I speak very slowly you will understand.

Group A sticks a gun in my face and demands that my property be handed over to them upon the threat of violent force.

Group A then goes and distributes this property to Groups B, C, D, E, F and G.

or;

Group A then asks me which of Groups B, C, D, E, F or G I would like my stolen property to go to.


In neither scenario does the violence of Group As initial act become magically altered to be anything other than the violence it is. I care not for your justifications for such a system of institutional violence.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I'm skeptical...but open minded when it comes to anarcho-capitalism. As a pragmatarian the only thing I advocate is that taxpayers be allowed to directly allocate their taxes. If taxpayers decide to boycott government organizations one by one out of existence then so be it.

/sigh

I understand not how the most basic of concepts escapes your ability to comprehend. I am sorry that I cannot use a crayon to draw this out for you, but perhaps if I speak very slowly you will understand.

Group A sticks a gun in my face and demands that my property be handed over to them upon the threat of violent force.

Group A then goes and distributes this property to Groups B, C, D, E, F and G.

or;

Group A then asks me which of Groups B, C, D, E, F or G I would like my stolen property to go to.


In neither scenario does the violence of Group As initial act become magically altered to be anything other than the violence it is. I care not for your justifications for such a system of institutional violence.

 

[RiseAgainst]

So then why is RiseAgainst so against allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes?

/sigh

I understand not how the most basic of concepts escapes your ability to comprehend. I am sorry that I cannot use a crayon to draw this out for you, but perhaps if I speak very slowly you will understand.

Group A sticks a gun in my face and demands that my property be handed over to them upon the threat of violent force.

Group A then goes and distributes this property to Groups B, C, D, E, F and G.

or;

Group A then asks me which of Groups B, C, D, E, F or G I would like my stolen property to go to.


In neither scenario does the violence of Group As initial act become magically altered to be anything other than the violence it is. I care not for your justifications for such a system of institutional violence.

 

[JuicyG]

I'm skeptical...but open minded when it comes to anarcho-capitalism. As a pragmatarian the only thing I advocate is that taxpayers be allowed to directly allocate their taxes. If taxpayers decide to boycott government organizations one by one out of existence then so be it.

Yes, I`m also flirting with the idea and read few books on anarchist philosophy written by French and Russian authors. I do have doubts, mainly 2 major doubts:

1. Will an anarchist system be able to defend itself effectively against outside intrusion aka a statist power?

If you look throughout history, anarchist experiments were defeated by outside statist forces. eg Free anarchist territory in Ukraine, Spanish anarchist revolution or anarchist experiments in Asia.

2. Will an anarchist society only work with certain kind of people, level of civilization, advancement `n so on?

Napoleon was greeted by everyone when he first came to power as a liberator and bringer of freedom, while he just ended up crowning himself emperor which disappointed a lot of people.
One interesting thing, though, that Napoleon said was that freedom only works for certain civilized people, made of certain cloth. It doesn`t work for everyone.

My fear is that if you create an anarchist society made of random people from random cultures it will fail miserably. I think it will only work if people are screened somehow and selected based on certain criteria. For example, I don`t believe it could work if you put dozens of religions together in an anarchist system. I think these systems have to be highly homogenous in order to work.

 

[RiseAgainst]

RiseAgainst,

Are you a year or two old? You show up here and expect other people to make your arguments for you regarding something you haven't proven that you know anything about.

Use your mind and do something for yourself for once.

If you wish to discuss a topic, it's highly advantageous for you to have an understanding of the topic to begin with. To enter a debate forum and say "I know nothing about this, but it's stupid. Prove me wrong." is the least intellectually honest, lowest form of debate I have ever seen in my life. Followed only by the repititious ridiculousness the likes of Xero and his fingers in the ears "Ill just say it louder and repeat it over and over and over and over" method.

If you can't be bothered to expend your own energy to gain even the most basic of understandings of a topic you'd like to discuss, why should anyone waste their energy doing it for you?

It's no wonder you want guys with guns to force other people to do things for you.

 

[Xerographica]

RiseAgainst, so in both scenarios Group A is the clear bad guy wielding a gun...forcing people to give up their property. But you still haven't answered my question.

If taxpayers were allowed to choose which government organizations received their taxes...why wouldn't they boycott Group A?

 

[RiseAgainst]

RiseAgainst, so in both scenarios Group A is the clear bad guy wielding a gun...forcing people to give up their property. But you still haven't answered my question.

If taxpayers were allowed to choose which government organizations received their taxes...why wouldn't they boycott Group A?

Because they have the guns. Group A IS the government today, right now, in front of your eyes. If your theory is correct, people everywhere are boycotting the US right now and not paying the IRS, right?

 

[Xerographica]

Yes, I`m also flirting with the idea and read few books of anarchist philosophy written by French and Russian authors. I do have doubts, mainly 2 major doubts:

As a pragmatarian I don't have to risk it. If Canada is about to attack the US then more and more people would allocate their taxes to the Dept of Defense. UNLESS...there is also a non-profit militia that operates more efficiently and effectively than our military. In that case then more and more people would donate money to the militia and less and less people would allocate their taxes to the DoD.