To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[noneedtoaggress]

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.

HURRRRRRRRR DRUG WAR.

 

[Sam I am]

Nope. "Security Force B" went from a "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.

Murphy's law: If it can go wrong, it will go wrong.

Even if security force B is small, they're going to still try to enforce their laws upon you.

So far, your only answer to opting out is "well, other people will opt out too".

 

[RiseAgainst]

Even if security force B is small, they're going to still try to enforce their laws upon you.

So far, your only answer to opting out is "well, other people will opt out too".

And again, the only alternative you've provided is that since force B MIGHT exist under anarchy, and MIGHT function as you say it will, we should make Force B PERMANENT through the state and submit to it.

Do you really think this is a valid argument against anarchism? Again, at BEST it is an argument for nihilism, but it certainly is no argument against anarchism or for the state.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Even if security force B is small, they're going to still try to enforce their laws upon you.

So far, your only answer to opting out is "well, other people will opt out too".

Dude this discussion is retarded.

HOW DO YOU OPT OUT OF A MUGGER WHEN A MUGGER MEETS U IN A BACK ALLEY AND HE HAS A GUN AND U DONT HAVE A GUN. LOL STATISM FOREVER!!!!!!

 

[Sam I am]

Dude this discussion is retarded.

HOW DO YOU OPT OUT OF A MUGGER WHEN A MUGGER MEETS U IN A BACK ALLEY AND HE HAS A GUN AND U DONT HAVE A GUN. LOL STATISM FOREVER!!!!!!

You can't opt out. And that's why your "Free market security" can't work

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Is that so.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

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.

Because "only 2 security forces, one good and one evil and the evil one has omnipotent power to overcome A, and everyone voluntarily funds B, without the threat of coercion, because they feel like evil protection is better than lame ass good protection" is in line with "reality".

HOW R U GONNA DEFEAT GOD IF GOD WANTS TO KILL U???? STATISM FOREVER!!!

Get real. Be honest.

 

[bolil]

We are proceeding from a flawed premise, that there is force A (just) and force B (unjust) when a Free society would likely entail forces A through ZZ. If Force B begins to behave like a group of thugs, chances are they are going to upset many more groups than just belong to force A, and in doing so will eventually be put down (I am borrowing from Rothbard here, almost verbatim). Even if Force B is better funded because they cater to rich groups, that advantage in funding will be equalized when say Force A,C, and D all decide it is time to cooperate in putting down Force B (because, taken as a net A,C, and D will likely have equal funding to Force B). The idea is that it is better to be able to choose than to be arbitrarily forced to support Force B.

The only way to opt completely out of society is to opt out of life, which makes all of this a non issue. Furthermore, you talk about Force B as though it grew to national power overnight... this is unlikely unless, as is the current case, everyone is FORCED to fund them. What is more likely is that people, understanding strength in numbers and the value of efficiency, will group together and contract Security Forces on a state to state, county to county, or even on a town to town basis.

However, just because a large number of individuals have chosen to group together for purposes, a fore mentioned, does not mean that an individual that feels his liberty is being infringed by the group's chosen security firm should be a party to his own persecution. It is very likely that in a society where security is provided by free market enterprises, but the rule of law is provided by the Constitution, specialist groups will arise that offer protection to these individuals because there would be nothing to keep the individuals, no matter the physical difference between them, from banding together themselves out of the same mutual instance of protection that would lead to state wide, county wide, or town wide security forces.

Furthermore, A free society would also entail free travel, so if a local force began to persecute and individual unfairly (perhaps because his morality did not click with the larger group) then that individual could, and probably would, to say nothing of should, leave and go to a place where people that share his morality have congregated. If he likes screwin barn animals, he will likely have trouble finding a state, county, or town that will cater to him sufficiently. But if he is: Gay, a drug user, a socialist, likes to walk on his hands, or is just a loner then chances are he will be able to find a place where people share his morality, and employ a security force (which are likely to be made up of locals as it would be much less expensive, not the corporate stuff everyone envisions) that will not persecute him.

Forgive my rant, I am still working through this concept myself.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I really don't know why you guys are bothering to write paragraphs to respond to this.

 

[Sam I am]

We are proceeding from a flawed premise, that there is force A (just) and force B (unjust) when a Free society would likely entail forces A through ZZ. If Force B begins to behave like a group of thugs, chances are they are going to upset many more groups than just belong to force A, and in doing so will eventually be put down (I am borrowing from Rothbard here, almost verbatim). Even if Force B is better funded because they cater to rich groups, that advantage in funding will be equalized when say Force A,C, and D all decide it is time to cooperate in putting down Force B (because, taken as a net A,C, and D will likely have equal funding to Force B). The idea is that it is better to be able to choose than to be arbitrarily forced to support Force B.

The only way to opt completely out of society is to opt out of life, which makes all of this a non issue. Furthermore, you talk about Force B as though it grew to national power overnight... this is unlikely unless, as is the current case, everyone is FORCED to fund them. What is more likely is that people, understanding strength in numbers and the value of efficiency, will group together and contract Security Forces on a state to state, county to county, or even on a town to town basis.

However, just because a large number of individuals have chosen to group together for purposes, a fore mentioned, does not mean that an individual that feels his liberty is being infringed by the group's chosen security firm should be a party to his own persecution. It is very likely that in a society where security is provided by free market enterprises, but the rule of law is provided by the Constitution, specialist groups will arise that offer protection to these individuals because there would be nothing to keep the individuals, no matter the physical difference between them, from banding together themselves out of the same mutual instance of protection that would lead to state wide, county wide, or town wide security forces.

Furthermore, A free society would also entail free travel, so if a local force began to persecute and individual unfairly (perhaps because his morality did not click with the larger group) then that individual could, and probably would, to say nothing of should, leave and go to a place where people that share his morality have congregated. If he likes screwin barn animals, he will likely have trouble finding a state, county, or town that will cater to him sufficiently. But if he is: Gay, a drug user, a socialist, likes to walk on his hands, or is just a loner then chances are he will be able to find a place where people share his morality, and employ a security force (which are likely to be made up of locals as it would be much less expensive, not the corporate stuff everyone envisions) that will not persecute him.

Forgive my rant, I am still working through this concept myself.

Look at the world around you. There are nearly 200 force B's governing various parts of the world, and there are nearly no force A's. History is dominated with Force B's competing with other force B's and then sometimes breaking up into multiple force B's, or getting overthrown by entities which later became force Bs.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Look at the world around you. There are nearly 200 force B's governing various parts of the world, and there are nearly no force A's. History is dominated with Force B's competing with other force B's and then sometimes breaking up into multiple force B's, or getting overthrown by entities which later became force Bs.

Wow you got it all figured out. I renounce voluntary association, I guess it's statism again for me.

 

[Xerographica]

Wow you got it all figured out. I renounce voluntary association, I guess it's statism again for me.

Well..don't forget about pragmatarianism.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Well..don't forget about pragmatarianism.

lol okay, that was funny.

 

[Sam I am]

Wow you got it all figured out. I renounce voluntary association, I guess it's statism again for me.

And Force B isn't evil either They're just more in touch with reality. members of force B generally don't trespass on one another, because the definition of trespass is well defined. They can go about their business knowing which actions will can cause retribution and which ones can't. Your free society depends on everyone knowing what everyone else's needs are. It sounds like a fine idea, but it's has no basis in reality.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Tell me more, oh wise one.

 

[Wesker1982]

Okay, so in your model, you have the choice of whether or not to follow your rules EXCEPT for when when you break those rules.

Makes sence

lol, you would by default be opted out unless you chose to opt in

 

[noneedtoaggress]

lol, you would by default be opted out unless you chose to opt in

Not if they had a big stick!

 

[Wesker1982]

lol wow, page 30 and you are still stuck on how defense agencies would get along? That has been addressed and solved pages ago ITT, and decades ago by various people.

Since you have no response to their reply and replies ITT, and keep ignoring them, it is pretty obvious you are trollin'.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

lol wow, page 30 and you are still stuck on how defense agencies would get along? That has been addressed and solved pages ago ITT, and decades ago by various people.

Since you have no response to their reply and replies ITT, and keep ignoring them, it is pretty obvious you are trollin'.

 

[RiseAgainst]

And Force B isn't evil either They're just more in touch with reality. members of force B generally don't trespass on one another, because the definition of trespass is well defined. They can go about their business knowing which actions will can cause retribution and which ones can't. Your free society depends on everyone knowing what everyone else's needs are. It sounds like a fine idea, but it's has no basis in reality.

You are the least knowledgable troll I've seen here yet. Free society requires only that each person know what their own needs are. Statist society requires the ruling body to know what everyone else's needs are, or to simply act on their own needs, the rest be damned.

WE HAVE SO FAR been discussing the free society, the society of peaceful cooperation and voluntary interpersonal relations. There is, however, another and contrasting type of interpersonal relation: the use of aggressive violence by one man against another. What such aggressive violence means is that one man invades the property of another without the victim’s consent. The invasion may be against a man’s property in his person (as in the case of bodily assault), or against his property in tangible goods (as in robbery or trespass). In either case, the aggressor imposes his will over the natural property of another—he deprives the other man of his freedom of action and of the full exercise of his natural self-ownership.

Let us set aside for a moment the corollary but more complex case of tangible property, and concentrate on the question of a man’s ownership rights to his own body. Here there are two alternatives: either we may lay down a rule that each man should be permitted (i.e., have the right to) the full ownership of his own body, or we may rule that he may not have such complete ownership. If he does, then we have the libertarian natural law for a free society as treated above. But if he does not, if each man is not entitled to full and 100 percent self-ownership, then what does this imply? It implies either one of two conditions: (1) the “communist” one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or (2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another—a system of rule by one class over another. These are the only logical alternatives to a state of 100 percent self-ownership for all.[1]

Let us consider alternative (2); here, one person or group of persons, G, are entitled to own not only themselves but also the remainder of society, R. But, apart from many other problems and difficulties with this kind of system, we cannot here have a universal or natural-law ethic for the human race. We can only have a partial and arbitrary ethic, similar to the view that Hohenzollerns are by nature entitled to rule over non-Hohenzollerns. Indeed, the ethic which states that Class G is entitled to rule over Class R implies that the latter, R, are subhuman beings who do not have a right to participate as full humans in the rights of self-ownership enjoyed by G—but this of course violates the initial assumption that we are carving out an ethic for human beings as such.

What then of alternative (I)? This is the view that, considering individuals A, B, C . . ., no man is entitled to 100percent ownership of his own person. Instead, an equal part of the ownership of A’s body should be vested in B, C . . ., and the same should hold true for each of the others. This view, at least, does have the merit of being a universal rule, applying to every person in the society, but it suffers from numerous other difficulties.

In the first place, in practice, if there are more than a very few people in the society, this alternative must break down and reduce to Alternative (2), partial rule by some over others. For it is physically impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal share of partial ownership over every other man. In practice, then, this concept of universal and equal other-ownership is Utopian and impossible, and supervision and therefore ownership of others necessarily becomes a specialized activity of a ruling class. Hence, no society which does not have full self-ownership for everyone can enjoy a universal ethic. For this reason alone, 100percent self-ownership for every man is the only viable political ethic for mankind.

But suppose for the sake of argument that this Utopia could be sustained. What then? In the first place, it is surely absurd to hold that no man is entitled to own himself, and yet to hold that each of these very men is entitled to own a part of all other men! But more than that, would our Utopia be desirable? Can we picture a world in which no man is free to take any action whatsoever without prior approval by everyone else in society? Clearly no man would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly perish. But if a world of zero or near-zero self-ownership spells death for the human race, then any steps in that direction also contravene the law of what is best for man and his life on earth. And, as we saw above, any ethic where one group is given full ownership of another violates the most elemental rule for any ethic: that it apply to every man. No partial ethics are any better, though they may seem superficially more plausible, than the theory of all- power-to-the-Hohenzollerns.

In contrast, the society of absolute self-ownership for all rests on the primordial fact of natural self-ownership by every man, and on the fact that each man may only live and prosper as he exercises his natural freedom of choice, adopts values, learns how to achieve them, etc. By virtue of being a man, he must use his mind to adopt ends and means; if someone aggresses against him to change his freely-selected course, this violates his nature; it violates the way he must function. In short, an aggressor interposes violence to thwart the natural course of a man’s freely adopted ideas and values, and to thwart his actions based upon such values.


~Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty