To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[Sam I am]

It is in their economic self interest to coexist peacefully.

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

Your argument was "professional armies are best". The argument of where they are best and worst is a different argument.

 

[ClayTrainor]

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

It's funny when people use the "human nature" argument as though it's somehow an argument against the concept of anarchy, because the exact same argument can be used to refute the concept of a state, thus rendering the argument entirely invalid.

If human nature is so inherently flawed, than who's going to run the government? Angels? lol

 

[ClayTrainor]

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

Another great argument against the state!

 

[Sam I am]

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.

I somehow think that I've read more of the articles that you linked to than you have.

 

[Sam I am]

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

A rose by any other name....

 

[Sam I am]

The fact of the matter is that government will happen no matter how many times you do away with the old one. The best thing that you can do is to establish a rule of laws instead of a rule of men Like we have in the United States. As much as anarchists don't like to admit this, the United States has a historically good system of government. And I for one would MUCH MUCH MUCH keep what we have right now than take my chances with the warlord who will fight his way to the top out of anarchy

 

[ClayTrainor]

It's true that throughout much of history, human beings tend to form organizations of people that we call “governments” or "states". It is commonly believed that where you establish a "Government" or "state" you don't have anarchy, but this can't be true, In the Natural Sense. Governments are just people and people cannot change or write Natural Laws. Out of this emerges the problem of "Who will watch the watchmen?"... in other words who keeps these supposed "rulers" from using their power for bad things? The obvious reality is that It's Still Anarchy, regardless of how people choose to organize.

Nature is in a constant state of anarchy.

 

[JuicyG]

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."

This is a common misconception about anarchy. An anarchist system would have laws and a law enforcement mechanism that could be either voluntary or private. Usually the rules were very few in number and based on common sense and most importantly are the rules wished and desired by that community not only desired by an outside force.

The popular anarchist sign the A encircled by O stands for "Anarchy is Order without Power"(very few people knows this) as Proudhon put it.

Anarchist philosopher Bakunin famously said

"the limited power of those around me is my infinite freedom"

or

"The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual."

.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I somehow think that I've read more of the articles that you linked to than you have.

To be clear I haven't linked to any articles. I gave you a link to Weskers thread in which he links to many things. At any rate, it's nice to see you reducing to ad hominem, I submit to your mighty intellect. I shall henceforth be known as a follower of the great philosopher king Sam I am, to hell with those halfwitts Mises, Rothbard, Spooner, Tucker, Locke, Chartier, Molyneaux, Long, Bastiat, and the lot. I renounce every word of theirs I've ever read...

 

[Xerographica]

RiseAgainst, why are you answering a question that I haven't asked? Never once did I ask you how many government organizations currently depend on the initiation of violent force. That never has been...and never will be my question. You know why that will never be my question? Because the answer is ridiculously obvious.

Here is the question that I have been asking. If people could choose which government organizations receive their taxes...why wouldn't they boycott the government organization(s) that are responsible for tax enforcement? You claim that taxpayers are being 'raped' and 'robbed' and threatened with violence. So please explain to me why taxpayers wouldn't boycott the government organizations that act so heinously towards them.

 

[Revolution9]

It's funny when people use the "human nature" argument as though it's somehow an argument against the concept of anarchy, because the exact same argument can be used to refute the concept of a state, thus rendering the argument entirely invalid.

If human nature is so inherently flawed, than who's going to run the government? Angels? lol

It is actually funnier how you do a backflip with a 3/4 twist and miss the landing on this particular bit of mental gymnastics. Within human nature is a broad spectrum at all points in history. There are individuals who act with goodness and grace and their are others who are inherently selfishly motivated and then there are those who look human but do not have the same internal characteristics of personality. We categorize those as psychopaths. In your little anarchy world the society is composed of good people who walk with grace. In the real world a psychopath will be the first to fill the criminal void and begin to prey on those good and gracious people. Then in comes the idea of the private security service. Thousands of them across the land. The psychopath hits and splits. There is no all points bulletin and if there is what is the incentive to possibly come to harm and apprehend this guy in an anarchic system? Money you will say, like a bounty. Well what if mr. psycho got a few million in bullion from his last heist and is willing to pay his apprehenders three times his bounty for freedom? Those self same market forces will pocket the cash because profit is king in your paradigm and nobody has any jurisdiction over anybody else because if they did that would be GOVERNMENT, so it can be done with total impunity.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

. I renounce every word of theirs I've ever read...

The beginning of the quest to think for yourself. You have taken the first baby steps into manhood.

Rev9

 

[ClayTrainor]

As much as anarchists don't like to admit this, the United States has a historically good system of government.

The US "Limited Government" Experiment has resulted in what is arguably the largest Government in World History.

And I for one would MUCH MUCH MUCH keep what we have right now than take my chances with the warlord who will fight his way to the top out of anarchy

The obvious reality, is that it's always been anarchy. That's how Washington got away with his Whiskey Rebellion. That's how Adams got away with his "alien and sedition acts". Both of which were completely unconstitutional nonsense, yet it didn't matter to them, because THEY were the supposed "rulers".

And this is what underlies the problem of the state. Who watches the watchmen? Who keeps the supposed rulers from using their power for bad things? Not even the founding fathers obeyed the constitution once they took office.

 

[Sam I am]

I almost feel ashamed in myself for starting this thread. I honestly believed that I might hear something different rather than the one guy really doing nothing insulting people he doesn't agree with, and the rest of the anarchy-defenders giving the standard

well instead we'll have something kinda like government, except it will be different, because uhh... they're not violent uhh.. except when they need to be

 

[ClayTrainor]

It is actually funnier how you do a backflip with a 3/4 twist and miss the landing on this particular bit of mental gymnastics.

I always know I'm on the right track, when you tell me how wrong you think I am.

Within human nature is a broad spectrum at all points in history. There are individuals who act with goodness and grace and their are others who are inherently selfishly motivated and then there are those who look human but do not have the same internal characteristics of personality. We categorize those as psychopaths.

Hmmm... and which type of personality tends to gravitate towards state power?

In your little anarchy world the society is composed of good people who walk with grace. In the real world a psychopath will be the first to fill the criminal void and begin to prey on those good and gracious people.

You realize this exact same argument can be used against the state, right?

Then in comes the idea of the private security service. Thousands of them across the land. The psychopath hits and splits.

If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of "national security" does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat.Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does. - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, page 255

"The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions." - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, page 288

There is no all points bulletin and if there is what is the incentive to possibly come to harm and apprehend this guy in an anarchic system? Money you will say, like a bounty.

You realize that you're just having a conversation with yourself, right? It's obvious that you have no interest in anything I say, since you go ahead and answer your own questions, lol.

 

[JuicyG]

I almost feel ashamed in myself for starting this thread. I honestly believed that I might hear something different rather than the one guy really doing nothing insulting people he doesn't agree with, and the rest of the anarchy-defenders giving the standard

What anarchy basically comes down to is decentralization of power. All anarchist philosophers agree on this very issue. If you decentralize power and bring it to lower level, you`ll create less abusive, unconsentual laws and the laws that will be created locally will represent people way better than laws created by centralized government with 1 size fits all solutions.

Also, a decentralized system is much more efficient. You can see this phenomenon with big companies, which at some point crumble under their own weight. They become too big to function. Most efficient systems are usually small, adept to localized conditions and homogenous.
If you want high growth company, usually best place to find it is in penny stocks not big cap stocks.

 

[ClayTrainor]

There are individuals who act with goodness and grace and their are others who are inherently selfishly motivated

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.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I almost feel ashamed in myself for starting this thread. I honestly believed that I might hear something different rather than the one guy really doing nothing insulting people he doesn't agree with, and the rest of the anarchy-defenders giving the standard

"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.

 

[tttppp]

The fact of the matter is that government will happen no matter how many times you do away with the old one. The best thing that you can do is to establish a rule of laws instead of a rule of men Like we have in the United States. As much as anarchists don't like to admit this, the United States has a historically good system of government. And I for one would MUCH MUCH MUCH keep what we have right now than take my chances with the warlord who will fight his way to the top out of anarchy

When was the last time our government was good? It certainly wasn't in my lifetime. It probably wasn't in Ron Paul's lifetime either. This country's success was created by capitalism. Almost everything the government has ever done has slowed down the effect of capitalism. In my opinion, we should scrap our entire government and start from scratch. Create a simple and transparent system that everyone can follow. No more creating infinite layers of laws where the government tries to sneak in the bad stuff and say its to protect us.

I don't understand how you can say our legislative branch is good. Its designed to limit the power of the president and create a system where nobody is accountable for anything and everyone just blames each other. One person should ultimately be in charge and held accountable for everything. Just like a business.

You may be right that government will inherently happen. However, in a situation of pure anarchy, you may get a situation of competing governments. This can be very positive. The governments would compete for who has the best services and who can do it for the lowest price. This could be very beneficial.

That said, given the disaster our government is today, I doubt anyone would say that anarchy is worse than our current government.