To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[tttppp]

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

The only way you could do that is if you have complete anarchy. Our current government is not going to let you form your own government.

 

[Xerographica]

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.

Dude, where's my ethical consumerism?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The only way you could do that is if you have complete anarchy. Our current government is not going to let you form your own government.

No, it's called micro-secession. You other people can have your government, and I'll have mine (along with others who like my government). Competition is good.

 

[Sam I am]

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.

Let's say I happen to live with a group of rebellious nomads. We don't respect your notions of property. You didn't create that land, and the person who sold it to you didn't either. To us, everyone should be able to eat whatever crops happen to be growing on any land. We don't respect your notion of laws either. Why should we care about your fancy arbiters that you want to impose on us? We don't exactly live anywhere, but for the sake of argument, we aren't that hard to find. Your security agency finds us. What do they do?

 

[RiseAgainst]

Let's say I happen to live with a group of rebellious nomads. We don't respect your notions of property. You didn't create that land, and the person who sold it to you didn't either. To us, everyone should be able to eat whatever crops happen to be growing on any land. We don't respect your notion of laws either. Why should we care about your fancy arbiters that you want to impose on us? We don't exactly live anywhere, but for the sake of argument, we aren't that hard to find. Your security agency finds us. What do they do?

You do realize that you're making an argument for nihilism, right? I dislike the concept of nihilism, but it along with self-ownership based anarchism are the only two logically consistent and non-contradictory ideologies I've found. You have yet to make a single argument for the state, though I believe you have argued the position of nihilism in a somewhat reasonable manner. If you'd like to argue for nihilism I'd be interested in hearing more, or if indeed you still contend to argue for the state I'd be interested in hearing your first argument in support of it.

 

[tttppp]

No, it's called micro-secession. You other people can have your government, and I'll have mine (along with others who like my government). Competition is good.

I agree with competition. But how do you have competition when you have a big government that controls everything. As long as this government is in charge we can't simply decide to follow our own rules and not the rules of the government.

 

[Sam I am]

You do realize that you're making an argument for nihilism, right? I dislike the concept of nihilism, but it along with self-ownership based anarchism are the only two logically consistent and non-contradictory ideologies I've found. You have yet to make a single argument for the state, though I believe you have argued the position of nihilism in a somewhat reasonable manner. If you'd like to argue for nihilism I'd be interested in hearing more, or if indeed you still contend to argue for the state I'd be interested in hearing your first argument in support of it.

I'm not arguing in favor of nihilism, I'm only pointing out that such a group of individuals can and WILL exist in the State-free model that has been presented to me. They won't respect your property, and they will do things that you things that you consider stealing, and they will do this without malicious intent. They have their own idea of freedom, and they don't wand your systems imposed on them.

So here's the question: Are you going to just let them continue to take your property, or are you going to use some sort of violent force to prevent them from doing that.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Let's say I happen to live with a group of rebellious nomads. We don't respect your notions of property. You didn't create that land, and the person who sold it to you didn't either. To us, everyone should be able to eat whatever crops happen to be growing on any land. We don't respect your notion of laws either. Why should we care about your fancy arbiters that you want to impose on us? We don't exactly live anywhere, but for the sake of argument, we aren't that hard to find. Your security agency finds us. What do they do?

Okay... probably the same thing that would happen in the statist society today...?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Dude, where's my ethical consumerism?

DUDE BUY NOW VIAGRA CIALIS !!

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not arguing in favor of nihilism, I'm only pointing out that such a group of individuals can and WILL exist in the State-free model that has been presented to me. They won't respect your property, and they will do things that you things that you consider stealing, and they will do this without malicious intent. They have their own idea of freedom, and they don't wand your systems imposed on them.

So here's the question: Are you going to just let them continue to take your property, or are you going to use some sort of violent force to prevent them from doing that.

Again, just because there are some people who do not recognize the objective, observable truth of individual sovereignty and the fruits thereof does not mean that those are not universal truths. Regardless if some group of nomads comes along who don't respect individuals and property, my rights still exist. If these people come along in a stateless society, I will defend my life and property.

 

[fisharmor]

So here's the question: Are you going to just let them continue to take your property, or are you going to use some sort of violent force to prevent them from doing that.

If I lived in a stateless society, the very first thing I'd seek to buy is a Glock 18.
There's a reason you've probably never heard of that particular model. It's basically impossible to own thanks to the state.
It's also what would be strapped to my hip the first time I caught you stealing my property.
(Even with the state, you're likely to notice a shiny S&W 681 on my hip if you do it.)

I am not into killing people so we'd have a discussion first.
Most people are not into killing people so they'd want to have a discussion as well.
I think in a stateless society, a lot more would be wearing hardware during that discussion than you think.
You'd also be taking an awful risk, eating my vegetables, that I'm actually not the sort of person who likes to talk things through.
I think that would serve as a disincentive to theft.

You may also note that, in the here and now, the threat of violence is what keeps the unscrupulous from stealing vegetables. It's just the cops who do the violence. And in the here and now, in case you've missed all the threads on this forum, cops get to be as brutal as they like and are never held to account. If we were talking private security companies, and if private citizen fisharmor was putting new holes in people for declarations of my sucking at darts, there might actually be some questioning as to whether or not I ought to be walking free.
Not so today.

You may also note that early last spring, agents of the state started tromping through my vegetable garden and spraypainting everything, because my neighbor was having digging done and someone called for MY property to be marked.
After I told dumb fuck agent to use his damned flags, I actually called and tried to point out how ridiculous this arrangement was, where my vegetable garden was getting spraypainted for work my neighbor was doing, and was told to take it up with my elected representatives.

As already stated, you haven't yet defended the state.
It's doing the exact things you're saying are unavoidable in a stateless society.
I can't do a fuckin' thing about them spraypainting my garden periodically. In a stateless society, I'd have a fair shot at stopping you eating my vegetables.

As I always point out in these threads, I'm totally unconvinced that we'll all ride rainbow-shitting unicorns in an anarchy.
I only see it as a better alternative to the ridiculousness we have right now.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

But if there were rainbow-shitting unicorns, it would make a stateless society even more attractive than it already is.

As Murphy lays out in the above video (right around the 14:00 mark), a stateless society wouldn't necessitate everyone carrying around iron on their hips; at least not the stateless society we advocate, anyway.

 

[Wesker1982]

I'm only pointing out that such a group of individuals can and WILL exist in the State-free model that has been presented to me.

Most people are against initiated aggression. The good people will use defensive force to stop the bad. If the bad people outnumber the good people, the negative effects are multiplied when only the coercive monopoly can defend themselves. So even if you really think people are that barbaric and determined to steal and murder people, having a State will make it worse.

In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. - Murray Rothbard

So here's the question: Are you going to just let them continue to take your property, or are you going to use some sort of violent force to prevent them from doing that.

I probably wouldn't personally use violence unless my life was in danger. If someone kept stealing fruit from my garden, I would have my insurance agency gather evidence and take them to court. BUT THAT SOUNDS LIKE WAR BECAUSE HIS AGENCY WOULD FIGHT YOU DUH HAHAHAHA (CLICK HERE)

WTF HOW WOUDL COURTS WORK< R U SERIOUS? in 3.....2....CLICK HERE

But courts would be crooked and only serve teh rich in 3....2...CLICK HERE

 

[Sam I am]

Okay... probably the same thing that would happen in the statist society today...?

So your agency would use violence to take what they believe to be of equal value from us, but considering that we don't keep very many possessions on us as a matter of principle, and can't come close to compensating, your agency would kill us. Or imprison us by use of force and violence. Or impose slavery upon us by threat of violence, at least until we worked off what you see to be our "debt" at whatever wages your agency, or arbitrator friends feel deem is fair.

Again, just because there are some people who do not recognize the objective, observable truth of individual sovereignty and the fruits thereof does not mean that those are not universal truths. Regardless if some group of nomads comes along who don't respect individuals and property, my rights still exist. If these people come along in a stateless society, I will defend my life and property.

In addition to that, you would project your vision of "universal truths" upon everyone. even those who choose not to be a member of your society, by force of violence if necessary.

your model is looking more and more like a statist government every time you post.



Let's take a different path. Maybe I'm just a lone nomad, I might stay in a Church that provides Sanctuary for all. Maybe I crash in one of your neighbor's house. He sympathizes with my way of life, although he doesn't want to live that way himself, and he is willing to protect me. In order for your security agency to get to me, they have to enter your neighbor's property, but he doesn't want your security agency on his property. He sees the same universal truth to property as you do, It's his property and he can do with it what he wants, and no Arbitrator or Security agency can tell him otherwise.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So your agency would use violence to take what they believe to be of equal value from us, but considering that we don't keep very many possessions on us as a matter of principle, and can't come close to compensating, your agency would kill us. Or imprison us by use of force and violence. Or impose slavery upon us by threat of violence, at least until we worked off what you see to be our "debt" at whatever wages your agency, or arbitrator friends feel deem is fair.

In addition to that, you would project your vision of "universal truths" upon everyone. even those who choose not to be a member of your society, by force of violence if necessary.

your model is looking more and more like a statist government every time you post.

Wha... you lost me there, bub. I would only order my security agency to deal with you if you had infringed upon me or my property. If you and your band of nomads don't accept that I have a right to my life and property, that's not my problem. My I am entitled to my life and it's fruits as a matter of observable course:

Interesting that you should use the word, "cooperation"; the word implies voluntary, mutual consent as opposed to forced or coerced participation. Individuals have a right to life because individuals are objectively, observably distinct and sovereign - no one else can think with my mind, nor feel with my heart, nor speak with my tongue. While it is true that life prospers with the cooperation of other individuals, it is not true that life in and of itself depends upon the cooperation of others (speaking simply, here, of course). To deny the sovereignty of other individuals is to deny one's own sovereignty, which is a logical paradox.

If life is objectively a right, then the fruits of one's life (property) is also a right. The exchange of property between sovereign individuals (and I've seen that you have a twitch when it comes to this phrase - understand, I'm using it to describe human interaction, not as some kind of political movement) must logically be on a basis of voluntary, mutual consent. Individuals have a right to request assistance on a matter (a college education, for instance) but they do not have a right to demand and confiscate property to that end. To deny the sovereignty of other individuals - to deny their right to life and the product of their lives - is to introduce violence and warfare into human society: since humans are observably equal in terms of their humanity (if not their abilities), adopting a philosophy which allows for an individual to take life and property tacitly allows for his own life and property to be taken (warfare).

(From another thread I posted in earlier today)

Let's take a different path. Maybe I'm just a lone nomad, I might stay in a Church that provides Sanctuary for all. Maybe I crash in one of your neighbor's house. He sympathizes with my way of life, although he doesn't want to live that way himself, and he is willing to protect me. In order for your security agency to get to me, they have to enter your neighbor's property, but he doesn't want your security agency on his property. He sees the same universal truth to property as you do, It's his property and he can do with it what he wants, and no Arbitrator or Security agency can tell him otherwise.

Again, if you have aggressed against my person or property, and it has been agreed to be the case by a fair and recognized arbiter, my neighbor, if he wishes to continue to live in peace in our community, is more than likely not going to offer you protection. He's going to recognize the arbitration, or he is going to risk ostracism from his community.

 

[Sam I am]

If I lived in a stateless society, the very first thing I'd seek to buy is a Glock 18.
There's a reason you've probably never heard of that particular model. It's basically impossible to own thanks to the state.
It's also what would be strapped to my hip the first time I caught you stealing my property.
(Even with the state, you're likely to notice a shiny S&W 681 on my hip if you do it.)

I am not into killing people so we'd have a discussion first.
Most people are not into killing people so they'd want to have a discussion as well.
I think in a stateless society, a lot more would be wearing hardware during that discussion than you think.
You'd also be taking an awful risk, eating my vegetables, that I'm actually not the sort of person who likes to talk things through.
I think that would serve as a disincentive to theft.

You may also note that, in the here and now, the threat of violence is what keeps the unscrupulous from stealing vegetables. It's just the cops who do the violence. And in the here and now, in case you've missed all the threads on this forum, cops get to be as brutal as they like and are never held to account. If we were talking private security companies, and if private citizen fisharmor was putting new holes in people for declarations of my sucking at darts, there might actually be some questioning as to whether or not I ought to be walking free.
Not so today.

You may also note that early last spring, agents of the state started tromping through my vegetable garden and spraypainting everything, because my neighbor was having digging done and someone called for MY property to be marked.
After I told dumb fuck agent to use his damned flags, I actually called and tried to point out how ridiculous this arrangement was, where my vegetable garden was getting spraypainted for work my neighbor was doing, and was told to take it up with my elected representatives.

As already stated, you haven't yet defended the state.
It's doing the exact things you're saying are unavoidable in a stateless society.
I can't do a fuckin' thing about them spraypainting my garden periodically. In a stateless society, I'd have a fair shot at stopping you eating my vegetables.

As I always point out in these threads, I'm totally unconvinced that we'll all ride rainbow-shitting unicorns in an anarchy.
I only see it as a better alternative to the ridiculousness we have right now.

Okay, since you're arguing on the side on violence and fear, let's construct a more violent criminal for you. This criminal belongs to a gang, and this gang makes money by stealing cars. He's wearing a mask and gloves, and is hard to identify. You come out of your house, probably a lot less open to discussion than you would be with the vegetable thief, but the criminal's friend is watching for you, and he shoots you dead. Maybe you're particularly skilled with defending yourself, but this criminal gang is too, and you might have an off day. Your neighbors might be around, to help you out, maybe they recognize the gunshot. maybe the gun has a silencer, and the gunshot is harder to hear for them.

this is very risky for a gang to do this in the United States for a number of reasons, but the primary one is because the United States police force WILL hunt them down.

Now I'm sure that whatever security force in your model can hunt them down too, but in doing this, Why have they not become everything you hate about Government Police?

 

[CCTelander]

I see RPF is still the same old RPF.

I was thinking exactly the same thing as I read this thread, and wondering why I was wasting my time doing it instead of working through the market as usual, or just having a beer with some buds. Either would be a better use of my time.

 

[CCTelander]

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

So obvious yet so very often ignored.

 

[Sam I am]

Wha... you lost me there, bub. I would only order my security agency to deal with you if you had infringed upon me or my property. If you and your band of nomads don't accept that I have a right to my life and property, that's not my problem. My I am entitled to my life and it's fruits as a matter of observable course:

Yes, when they interfere with your "Universal truths" , you claim that you will impose your "universal truths" upon them.

What defines "Universal truths" anyway? Is it just what you feel they ought to be, or is it something that people have agreed to? What if not everyone agrees?

Again, if you have aggressed against my person or property, and it has been agreed to be the case by a fair and recognized arbiter, my neighbor, if he wishes to continue to live in peace in our community, is more than likely not going to offer you protection. He's going to recognize the arbitration, or he is going to risk ostracism from his community.

Are you suggesting that your neighbor wouldn't help me out of fear of violent retribution being applied to him himself?