To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[otherone]

If you read the quote from Hitler that I shared...you'll notice that he uses the word "balance". Most people want balance in their lives so we can assume...or I assume...that enough taxpayers would have allocated their taxes to some form of property protection. So the Nazis probably wouldn't have been able to steal a significant amount of property.

I'm not even sure how to approach addressing your comment. The very idea of "Nationalism" flies in the face of a 'free society'. Who would have stopped the Nazis theft and genocide? Why would an antisemitic people 'allocate' taxes to protect Jews?

 

[Sam I am]

The same way a mall would prevent it. Or a casino in Las Vegas, etc. Voluntarily funded defense services.

Defensive violence is ok.

All i was getting at was go get you to admit that they would have to use violence, since you seemed to be so against the government using violence to enforce it's laws.

The other group claims no such arbitrary territorial monopoly and funds itself without violence.

You don't know that. You're not in control of all the groups that will show up to enforce the laws. They'll do what They want to do, not what you think they should do.

 

[otherone]

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

I don't think it's considered 'theft' when it isn't 'your' property to begin with. We have no property "Rights" in America. We have "conditional property privilege".

 

[Wesker1982]

So I hire the slightly corrupted Vinny The Hammer's Security Goons Inc....

Rev9

ARG! You be the first matey to come up with ye' objection! SHIVER ME TIMBERS! Why didn't ye' buccaneers think of this before?!!!!?!?

Oh, wait... you mean this is like the first thing we learned about in the obvious objections to freedom 101?

 

[JuicyG]

Do you think it would have been any different if this same society was statist? Would they have been able to repel the Red Army?

This is an interesting question.

The anarchist army George Orwell joined in Spain totally despised hierarchy. Soldiers questioned most of the orders, however this had an interesting effect. It didn`t create a disorganized army but it actually managed to create an army of soldiers who believed 100% in the cause because they fought with true conviction.

In the case of the Ukrainian free state, the Black anarchist army did have some victories over the Tzar and the White army. However, question remains.
Can such a system achieve military efficiency on a big scale without centralized control? I think only history will be able to answer this one. The military doctrine of an anarchist army will have to be totally different than anything used in the past.

We have demonstrated that a private defense system is the most effective, not that it is invulnerable. Yes, a small society of anarchists would be unable to repel the total might of Nazi Germany. But a small society of statists would fare even worse—and in fact, plenty of government militaries were obliterated by Hitler’s armies.

So far history proved that private professional armies are the best armies so there`s a good chance this statement is correct.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

For anarchy to work the way anarchists wish it would, you would have to fundamentally change human nature and society. That is because anarchy inherently leads to government.

Same can be said of constitutionalists, FWIW.

 

[Wesker1982]

All i was getting at was go get you to admit that they would have to use violence, since you seemed to be so against the government using violence to enforce it's laws.

I am against the government using violence because they use it against peaceful people.

You don't know that. You're not in control of all the groups that will show up to enforce the laws. They'll do what They want to do, not what you think they should do.

It is in their economic self interest to coexist peacefully.

Since most people don't like initiating violence, they will only fund peaceful defensive services.

If people chose crooked and corrupt defense agencies, these same people would be even worse at picking the criminals in charge of the violent monopolies (governments).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So far history proved that private professional armies are the best armies so there`s a good chance this statement is correct.

ummm...the British lost to a bunch of rag-tag Americans. The French Grand Armee lost to a bunch of Russians. The US is still losing to a bunch of militants in the mideast.

To say professional armies are always "best" is a ways off.

 

[otherone]

So far history proved that private professional armies are the best armies so there`s a good chance this statement is correct.

Professional armies are motivated by lucre. Think 'condottiere'.

 

[JuicyG]

ummm...the British lost to a bunch of rag-tag Americans. The French Grand Armee lost to a bunch of Russians. The US is still losing to a bunch of militants in the mideast.

To say professional armies are always "best" is a ways off.

You forgot the key word "private". Do you think 100 talibans would stand a chance against 100 french foreign legion troops? Most of the American troops sent over are inexperienced kids and the commanding officers are not really picked based on ability but more on other considerations as in any branch of the inefficient state.

Also, those armies you`re referring to are not private but state owned. The bigger a system gets the more inefficient it becomes and so are state armies.
Foreign French Legion or Black Water would qualify as private armies.

There`s also a very important factor you have to take into account, which played big role in all your examples and that`s the home team advantage. The home team always has a big advantage over the attacker for various reasons such as: they`re highly motivated because they fight for family, home, their own life and they know the terrain and area very well, which brings another added bonus to the table.
So basically it`s not an apples to apples comparison as team playing defense will have an advantage from the get go.

 

[MooCowzRock]

Same can be said of constitutionalists, FWIW.

Nope, just enough of a population that can agree to use force to protect it.

 

[Wesker1982]

It didn`t create a disorganized army but it actually managed to create an army of soldiers who believed 100% in the cause because they fought with true conviction.

An army of people who genuinely and deeply believe in the cause they are fighting for can put up quite a fight, even against world superpowers. Like the Afghan/Soviet War, Vietnam, The American Revolution, Iraq War, the whole war on terrorism, etc. I would suspect a libertarian society would be just as motivated, and would have the efficiency of the market on their side.

Can such a system achieve military efficiency on a big scale without centralized control?

I think you could have organization without centralization. Insurance and defense agencies would find it in their interest to make agreements with each other in the case of an invasion. Roderick Long talks about organization without centralization here: http://freenation.org/a/f22l3.html

And again, I don't think we should underestimate the potential of a motivated armed populace.

 

[RiseAgainst]

My theory hasn't been implemented. People can't currently choose which government organizations receive their taxes. I'm advocating a system that would allow people to boycott individual government organizations. They still wouldn't be able to boycott the entire government. Well...unless everybody boycotted the government organizations responsible for tax enforcement.

Again...if people could choose which government organizations received their taxes...why wouldn't they boycott the government organizations that threaten them with the use of force?

Xero, this is the last time I will respond to you if you continue to refuse to acknowledge the most basic of principles which instead you avoid, obfuscate and dodge at every turn.

Every. Single. Government. Organization. Exists. Solely. On. The. Initiation. Of. Violent. Force.

Every.

Single.

One.

If I hadn't mentioned it before, perhaps it slipped my mind and for that I apologize, but every government organization exists solely on the initiation of violent force. That is to say, in summation, that all government organizations, inclusive of each sole organization, the umbrella organizations, any subsidiaries or fractional agencies thereof, exist solely on the initiation of violent force on innocent individuals.

I hope that I've made the point clear that all government agencies exist solely on the initiation of violent force. If you have any further questions regarding government organizations and which of them may exist solely on the initiation of violent force on individuals (which is all of them), please feel free to refer back to this post.

 

[RiseAgainst]

And you spray fake reality on your illusion and pretend it can actually exist for more than fleeting moments between meals.

Rev9

Yes, clearly the guns, prisons and enforcer thugs are all just figments of my imagination. The US is clearly a land of rainbow farting unicorns, where we all peacefully and voluntarily fund the most benevolent government this universe has ever seen.



Go back to sleep good citizen, these matters are nothing for you to worry your pretty little head about.

-StatusQuo9

 

[RiseAgainst]

Are you a 14 year old headbanger pissed at mommy and school? He is obviously trying to get you to explain it and all you got is lame soundbytes and then back down with this crap. You are not the intellectual giant you think you are or you would defend your position..which is an illusion which is why you cannot defend it. It is a counterfeit of true liberty and incapable of sustaining itself in this reality.

Rev9

Oh, what would I do without you Rev9? Your mighty words, and intricate philosophical wisdom are like the current to the river of my life.

Clearly I just don't understand anything.

 

[RiseAgainst]

All i was getting at was go get you to admit that they would have to use violence, since you seemed to be so against the government using violence to enforce it's laws.


You don't know that. You're not in control of all the groups that will show up to enforce the laws. They'll do what They want to do, not what you think they should do.

Sam, as has been the case from the very beginning of this thread, you need to do your own research. You are hardly the first person to raise any such "triumphant defeats of anarchism". Not in the course of history. Not on these boards. Not even in the past week. You are but another in a long line of, "I don't know anything about anarchism, and I can't be bothered to read, but I alone so smart have found the achilles heel that will take it down" minarchists. There is more than enough material out there if you actually wish to understand this subject matter. Every claim you make has been brought up, and has been addressed by gentlemen who have dedicated their lives to philosophical studies. That is not to say they are perfect or infalible, if you would like to read some of these things, and find after absorbing their explinations that you still find fault, I would love to discuss the topic further with you. That is intellectually honest, and wholly different from running into a subject you know nothing about and throwing around your assumptions, demanding everyone else do the research for you.

 

[Sam I am]

Society yes, but not human nature. The vast majority of people abhor non-defensive violence. The government gets away with mass murder and destruction because people have been indoctrinated into believing a false dichotomy. They only accept the horrors of the government because they falsely believe that the only alternative is a larger degree of chaos and disorder.

You need to learn more about human nature.

1. People act irrationally and emotionally
Take the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, the single biggest issue of the past decade for example. People were enraged. The vast majority of Americans were in favor of blowing the shit out of Afganistan. Who cared whether or not Al'Queda was actually there. Who cared whether or not there were civilian casualties. WE WANTED REVENGE, and Afganistan was associated with Bin Laden, at least in our minds where it mattered. Iraq was the exact same way. What do you think the relatives of the innocent civilians thought bout this? I'll bet they were angry.

An important point to realize about this is that most Americans supported the Afgan war, it was POPULAR.

The point is that people often lash out when they feel as though they've been wronged, and they lash out, often toward innocents who lash out in return.


2. people often don't want to put themselves in danger to help another person.
You've probably heard stories about how one person will be wronging another in the streets, and most people will just ignore him. Sometimes someone else will help, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Sometimes, someone who thinks that they are helping will just make the situation worse. Sometimes the apparent 'victim' really isn't in as much distress, or sometimes the attacker and his accomplishes will take retribution on the victim, and likely the helper too. see section 1.

3. People's interests don't always line up
Sometimes one person will believe that he's been wronged by another, when the other person will believe that he did nothing immoral. Situations like these are why we have written LAWS.

4. it only takes 1 person to create a state of lawlessness

I'm sure you might have seen the following pattern before.

Lets say there's a social norm, and person A violates that social norm to get ahead. Other people won't think it's fair that person A was able to get ahead that way, and they weren't, so often other people will violate the same rule that person A violated because "if he can do it, than I ought to be able to do it."

 

[ClayTrainor]

I see RPF is still the same old RPF.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You need to learn more about human nature.

1. People act irrationally and emotionally
Take the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, the single biggest issue of the past decade for example. People were enraged. The vast majority of Americans were in favor of blowing the shit out of Afganistan. Who cared whether or not Al'Queda was actually there. Who cared whether or not there were civilian casualties. WE WANTED REVENGE, and Afganistan was associated with Bin Laden, at least in our minds where it mattered. Iraq was the exact same way. What do you think the relatives of the innocent civilians thought bout this? I'll bet they were angry.

An important point to realize about this is that most Americans supported the Afgan war, it was POPULAR.

The point is that people often lash out when they feel as though they've been wronged, and they lash out, often toward innocents who lash out in return.


2. people often don't want to put themselves in danger to help another person.
You've probably heard stories about how one person will be wronging another in the streets, and most people will just ignore him. Sometimes someone else will help, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Sometimes, someone who thinks that they are helping will just make the situation worse. Sometimes the apparent 'victim' really isn't in as much distress, or sometimes the attacker and his accomplishes will take retribution on the victim, and likely the helper too. see section 1.

3. People's interests don't always line up
Sometimes one person will believe that he's been wronged by another, when the other person will believe that he did nothing immoral. Situations like these are why we have written LAWS.

4. it only takes 1 person to create a state of lawlessness

I'm sure you might have seen the following pattern before.

Lets say there's a social norm, and person A violates that social norm to get ahead. Other people won't think it's fair that person A was able to get ahead that way, and they weren't, so often other people will violate the same rule that person A violated because "if he can do it, than I ought to be able to do it."

These are all arguments against the State and for private law. Thanks!

 

[RiseAgainst]

You need to learn more about human nature.

LOL, narcissistic much? Clearly, Sam I am of the Ron Paul Forums, you are the wisest we have ever seen. Clearly you know far more than those who have studied human nature their entire lives, and long before any of those long dead scholars.

I assume your refutation to Ludwig Von Mises' "Human Action" is going to print soon, right? I'll be awaiting it's astounding destruction of human nature and praxeology with great anticipation.