To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[Revolution9]

One can't opt out of local governance.

Incorrect. I have opted out for most of my younger days. Unless you consider not breaking common law as opting in. I just see that as my duty as a human on this planet. The better statement is one is unlikely to be able to opt out of local governance due to their needing services supplied by them under the current paradigms.

Rev9

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Gosh, I wish I could rep you again...

Pretty good response, I got your back.

Hopefully it wasn't a waste.

 

[Sam I am]

Let me illustrate the skepticism I have toward "opting out"


Security force A: Security force A is peacefull fair, and they only use force when absolutely needed. They require a code of conduct, but it is the most lenient code of conduct among all security forces. When customers of force A have a dispute with non-customers, they generally try to be reasonable.

Security force B: Security force B generally offers basic freedoms to their own customers, but not nearly as much as security force A does. Security force B only cares about customers of Security force B. Security force B is actually quite oppressive to those who are not customers of Security Force B. If you swear at a force B customer, and you are not a force B customer, force B will forcibly capture you, and keep you in a dungeon for an arbitrary period of time. If you are in a dispute with a customer of force B, Force B will almost always side with their won customer. In disputes between 2 Force B customers, Force B applies established and arbitrary laws to settle the dispute.

Now I'm assuming that most of you would want to opt out of security force B, But the security force representing YOU isn't the one that you should be worried about. It's the security forces that do not represent you.

Now, when you opt out of security force B. how does that prevent security force B from imposing it's will upon you.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Let me illustrate the skepticism I have toward "opting out"


Security force A: Security force A is peacefull fair, and they only use force when absolutely needed. They require a code of conduct, but it is the most lenient code of conduct among all security forces. When customers of force A have a dispute with non-customers, they generally try to be reasonable.

Security force B: Security force B generally offers basic freedoms to their own customers, but not nearly as much as security force A does. Security force B only cares about customers of Security force B. Security force B is actually quite oppressive to those who are not customers of Security Force B. If you swear at a force B customer, and you are not a force B customer, force B will forcibly capture you, and keep you in a dungeon for an arbitrary period of time. If you are in a dispute with a customer of force B, Force B will almost always side with their won customer. In disputes between 2 Force B customers, Force B applies established and arbitrary laws to settle the dispute.

Now I'm assuming that most of you would want to opt out of security force B, But the security force representing YOU isn't the one that you should be worried about. It's the security forces that do not represent you.

Now, when you opt out of security force B. how does that prevent security force B from imposing it's will upon you.

What makes "Security Force B" any different from any gang of hooligans and why do you think they would be so voluntarily funded to get so much more powerful than group A when they sound like a bunch of asshats?

 

[Sam I am]

What makes "Security Force B" any different from any gang of hooligans and why do you think they would be so voluntarily funded to get so much more powerful than group A when they sound like a bunch of asshats?

You're dodging the question. Whether or not force A is more powerful than force B is nearly completely out of your control. When you just assume "Oh, force A will definitely be bigger" you're ignoring reality, a reality where you personally can't guarantee that the force with the traits that you want will also just happen to be the biggest one.

 

[Cabal]

What makes "Security Force B" any different from any gang of hooligans and why do you think they would be so voluntarily funded to get so much more powerful than group A when they sound like a bunch of asshats?

Basically this. You have to consider the economics of it all as well. Security Force B doesn't exist without attaining and maintaining an adequate market share which seems unlikely if they're conducting themselves as a violent gang.

 

[Sam I am]

Basically this. You have to consider the economics of it all as well. Security Force B doesn't exist without attaining and maintaining an adequate market share which seems unlikely if they're conducting themselves as a violent gang.

Force B is loyal to the customer, and not the customers opponent. That's appealing to many people. Most people would rather pay for that than Force A, who might decide that you were wrong after all.

The reason Force B doesn't go bankrupt is because their violence is mostly not directed at their own customers.


but all reasoning aside, you can continue to say, "oh, force B just won't exist", or "oh force B just won't be that big", but you don't control that. You can't just force other people not to choose force B.

So, if force B just happens to succeed. How do you opt out

 

[noneedtoaggress]

What? in your model society do you believe Force B's simply won't exist. Do you think a security force that will fight for their customer's interests, and won't fight for their customer's opponent's interests doesn't sound appealing to anyone?

"Force B" you're describing is just a gang, dude. Kidnapping people for cursing?

maybe force B is more powerful, maybe they Aren't.

If force B is weaker? what does A do about them without violently suppressing their competitors?

If they're roughly the same strength do they go to war?

If force B indeed is stronger, then still, How do you opt out of what impose upon outsiders?

If "force B" is kidnapping people for cursing, then they shouldn't be surprised when they're asked to stop, and if force is ultimately used against them.

If they're roughly the same strength, then they'll likely try to solve the dispute without having to go to war, because it's fucking costly in lives and treasure and the outcome is unpredictable. They will likely seek an arbitrator or try to settle whatever the dispute is amongst themselves.

Dude... seriously just pick up a book or something.

Here:

http://mises.org/daily/2088

http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Force B is loyal to the customer, and not the customers opponent. That's appealing to many people. Most people would rather pay for that than Force A, who might decide that you were wrong after all.

lol

"THE MARKET WORKS HOW I WANT IT TO ITS MY DREAMED UP SCENARIO."

 

[Cabal]

Force B is loyal to the customer, and not the customers opponent. That's appealing to many people. Most people would rather pay for that than Force A, who might decide that you were wrong after all.

You're looking at things in a vacuum. Just because they are loyal to the customer doesn't mean they are satisfying customer demand. Customer demand is probably more likely going to be focused around productive dispute resolution, rather than destructive and violent dispute creation.

 

[Sam I am]

"Force B" you're describing is just a gang, dude. Kidnapping people for cursing?



If "force B" is kidnapping people for cursing, then they shouldn't be surprised when they're asked to stop, and if force is ultimately used against them.

If they're roughly the same strength, then they'll likely try to solve the dispute without having to go to war, because it's fucking costly in lives and treasure and the outcome is unpredictable. They will likely seek an arbitrator or try to settle whatever the dispute is amongst themselves.

Dude... seriously just pick up a book or something.

Here:

http://mises.org/daily/2088

http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

It's not a matter of whether or not they deserve force to be applied to them. It's a matter of whether or not you can opt out.

How do you opt out of force b?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

It's not a matter of whether or not they deserve force to be applied to them. It's a matter of whether or not you can opt out.

How do you opt out of force b?

Well as long as we're imagining things I imagine I opt out of "force B". There.

 

[Sam I am]

Well as long as we're imagining things I imagine I opt out of "force B". There.

Won't stop force B from imposing it's laws on you

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Are you seriously asking me how to "opt out" of your imaginary omnipotent force that wants to impose itself on me?

 

[RiseAgainst]

Force B is loyal to the customer, and not the customers opponent. That's appealing to many people. Most people would rather pay for that than Force A, who might decide that you were wrong after all.

The reason Force B doesn't go bankrupt is because their violence is mostly not directed at their own customers.


but all reasoning aside, you can continue to say, "oh, force B just won't exist", or "oh force B just won't be that big", but you don't control that. You can't just force other people not to choose force B.

So, if force B just happens to succeed. How do you opt out

Hey Sam, Force B DOES EXIST. It is called the US Government, and you have NO OPTION but to fund them, NO OPTION but to obey them.

Again, if you are arguing FOR the state, you are doing a monumentally terrible job of it. If you are arguing out of the side of your mouth for nihilism, you are doing a decent job though you should simply come out and say it.

If you are simply trying to throw strawmen and red herrings at the wall against anarchism and praying something will stick, you are unoriginal, ill-informed, and again generally failing.

But keep slapping away at it, you demonstrate your lack of capacity for any real and saliable debate with each passing keystroke.

 

[Cabal]

Are you seriously asking me how to "opt out" of your imaginary omnipotent force that wants to impose itself on me?

I lol'd

 

[Sam I am]

Hey Sam, Force B DOES EXIST. It is called the US Government, and you have NO OPTION but to fund them, NO OPTION but to obey them.

Again, if you are arguing FOR the state, you are doing a monumentally terrible job of it. If you are arguing out of the side of your mouth for nihilism, you are doing a decent job though you should simply come out and say it.

If you are simply trying to throw strawmen and red herrings at the wall against anarchism and praying something will stick, you are unoriginal, ill-informed, and again generally failing.

But keep slapping away at it, you demonstrate your lack of capacity for any real and saliable debate with each passing keystroke.

You are correct. the United States Government is similar to force B. As it turns out, force B's can be pretty successful. No, you can't opt out. If you murder US citizens, you pay the penalty. Why you believe that another United States, or even worse, won't arise out of your "voluntary" anarchist society nobody can say is hard to say.

 

[Xerographica]

But you've already said that I don't have any choice about how much tax to pay. And I think all government programs are equally bad. So how does my choice of aardvark support, or zebra support, tell you anything?

It's not like I'm starting a business with voluntary investments. It's like I'm mugging you, and offering you a choice between whether I spend the money (that I took from you) on a flat-screen TV, or an Ipad. Whatever you choose, it's not an 'investment' and it doesn't show that there's a market failure. It just shows that I had enough force to take your money.

It's just not possible for all government programs to be equally bad. Like people...all organizations are unique.

LOL...I honestly and genuinely hate Apple. But how could you have known that? You, me...and everybody else...we all only have partial knowledge. So while you might not think it's a big deal...I would certainly appreciate being able to choose whether my money purchased an Ipad or flat-screen TV.

You might not think it's a big deal...but plenty of people believe that "by far the worst thing governments do is to make war"...so those people would certainly appreciate being able to boycott the Dept of Defense.

You might not think it's a big deal...but plenty of libertarians believe that welfare programs make the problem even worse....so they would certainly appreciate being able to boycott various government programs.

Freedom is all about choices. In the 50s and 60s when unions were at their peak of power...they demanded wages that were so high it became economically feasible for manufacturing companies to move overseas to developing countries. People in these developing countries primarily engaged in subsistence agriculture...which is not something I would personally choose to do. They basically only had 1 crappy choice. When the new manufacturing plants were built then they had 2 crappy choices. They could either break their backs in subsistence agriculture or they could work in sweatshops. Both choices were bad...but clearly they were not equally bad given that the demand for sweatshop jobs outpaced the supply of sweatshop jobs. That obviously meant that the wages paid by sweatshop jobs steadily rose. Now those countries are known as the Asian Tigers. It should go without saying that people in these countries now have way more choices than just 2 crappy ones. I covered this topic of globalization in more depth here...The Dialectic of Unintended Consequences.

You can say that you're not happy with your choices of crappy government organizations...but why is it necessary for me to convince you of the value of giving taxpayers a choice which government organizations receive their taxes?

We already know the liberal response to lowering/eliminating taxes...so let's put pragmatarianism on the table and see how they respond. They are going to think that both choices are bad...but perhaps they'll think that pragmatarianism is less bad enough that they might be willing to consider it. If they consider it then we would be in for a fascinating and extremely educational national debate.

 

[Sam I am]

Are you seriously asking me how to "opt out" of your imaginary omnipotent force that wants to impose itself on me?

There are very real such forces today, and there have been in the past. In fact, in Mexico right now, there are a lot of extra-state entities that actually provide security for civilians. In fact, the Mexican government isn't strong enough to handle all them right now. If you want a real-life example of your "anarchist" society, Look no further than Mexico.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

You are correct. the United States Government is similar to force B. As it turns out, force B's can be pretty successful. No, you can't opt out. If you murder US citizens, you pay the penalty. Why you believe that another United States, or even worse, won't arise out of your "voluntary" anarchist society nobody can say is hard to say.

Nope. "Security Force B" went from a crappy "voluntary security force" acting like a gang of thugs, to omnipotent power (at your whim), to a taxing state. Therefore Statism.

Why don't you opt-in to honesty.