Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That isn't exactly what I said. As for the rest of your question, well, yes, I did make it about the number of people. If a person is living in total isolation, there's no need to enforce anything, is there?
It's not about total isolation. It's about when 1 person fends off an attacker or two do it. So those 2 are government? Neighbors get together and decide to stop a body of water from eroding their property. Is that government?
Really it's about the size of government and how much of your daily life do you want them to rule over you. Can't drink that milk, cant take that drug......
In other words (and where the hell have you been to help me? ) if these rights aren't inherent the alternative is that you're a slave or you can enslave another.
Haha I actually thought to myself...how did I miss this one?? It's been a long busy week
Haha I actually thought to myself...how did I miss this one?? It's been a long busy week
Well, you gotta put those hours in. That 6-year-old Pakistani boy playing soccer in the street isn't going to commit suicide and make it easy on us.
We need tax dollars to fund the drones so they can find and eliminate him for our safety. I had an easy week of work really so I'm glad you picked up the slack. I probably only murdered 2-3 kids. You sound like you got maybe 5-6. Good for you.
Damn glad it's the weekend. Miller time and then right back to the killing on Monday.
Well, you gotta put those hours in. That 6-year-old Pakistani boy playing soccer in the street isn't going to commit suicide and make it easy on us.
We need tax dollars to fund the drones so they can find and eliminate him for our safety. I had an easy week of work really so I'm glad you picked up the slack. I probably only murdered 2-3 kids. You sound like you got maybe 5-6. Good for you.
Damn glad it's the weekend. Miller time and then right back to the killing on Monday.
Just doing our civic duty as law-abiding taxpayers... it's the price of a civilized society after all.
Okay, so here is my question for the anarchists. It is based on a few things I consider to be givens, please let me know if you disagree with any of them.
People tend to be social animals. Most do not want to live in isolation.
When people live together, there will always be some kind of consensus about what is and is not acceptable, even if it is as basic as "don't hit me, and don't take my stuff."
A majority will support that consensus, whatever it is, and come up with a means of enforcement, even if it's simply expelling from the community those who do not comply.
Anyone disagree yet?
Didn't think so.
Now...like it or not, that is government. It may be very limited, and very rudimentary, but it's government.
My big question about anarchy is not over whether or not it's a good idea, but about whether or not it has ever truly existed.
I just saw this post and want to answer...
You are correct on all of those points, but that isn't a "government" to us. You can call it one, but whatever you feel like calling it, that's not what we're against.
We're against a person or group that has societal permission to do things that would be considered wrong if done by anyone else. Example: It's wrong for you and I to personally force our neighbor to fund the causes we want funded, but we can have the government tax our neighbor to force them to pay into it.
What distinguishes government from everyone else is the right to rule over everyone within a given territory...to say "you owe us money and must obey us whether you consent or not". As long as that isn't considered acceptable in a society, you have what we call "anarchy" or a free/voluntary society.
I like to call it the default setting of a human being at birth because that person has not consented to any ruling body. This is obvious as one does not have the cognitive ability to give consent mere seconds after being shot out of a birthing canal.
The statist, otoh, believes consent is given at birth based on the social contract.
But you're wrong on expelling people from the community. Nobody has the right to physical force you to leave a physical location if you have not initiated aggression (violated natural rights) of another.
A man sitting in his house who doesn't agree to any rules or contracts that may be taking place in his area is still permitted to live there peacefully.
Though this would be a rarity as the other members of the community would use a strong combination of rewards/shunning to convince him otherwise.
He can still go it alone though. Can't remove him. At this point you're talking a small percentage of the population (sociopaths/psychopaths) who are going to try to strain this paradigm for sh*ts and giggles.
And if they happen to go from a non-aggressive neutral state to initiating violence they will be on the receiving end of some pretty harsh self-defense.
I'm not talking about expelling people who are minding their own business, I am talking about expelling those who are deemed to be a danger because of their aggression.
And actually, no, I don't believe anyone consents to anything simply by virtue of being born. That's absurd. At the same time, when a child is born into a family or society, they are going to receive some advantages and be charged with some responsibilities as a result of that. I'm not really sure how you resolve this apparent contradiction, if consent is the only thing that matters. Please know that I am not speaking against the idea of consent, I just don't know right now, okay? I think sometimes we have to do things we don't want to, if we are going to live with other people at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I just saw this post and want to answer...
You are correct on all of those points, but that isn't a "government" to us. You can call it one, but whatever you feel like calling it, that's not what we're against.
We're against a person or group that has societal permission to do things that would be considered wrong if done by anyone else. Example: It's wrong for you and I to personally force our neighbor to fund the causes we want funded, but we can have the government tax our neighbor to force them to pay into it.
What distinguishes government from everyone else is the right to rule over everyone within a given territory...to say "you owe us money and must obey us whether you consent or not". As long as that isn't considered acceptable in a society, you have what we call "anarchy" or a free/voluntary society.
I understand your point, but actually, defining what is and is not government was one of the main things I wanted to get to as a starting place. Now you have an idea of what I think it is, and I have an idea what you think it is. That will help further discussion, won't it?
I understand your point, but actually, defining what is and is not government was one of the main things I wanted to get to as a starting place. Now you have an idea of what I think it is, and I have an idea what you think it is. That will help further discussion, won't it?
Yes, defining our terms is extremely important because otherwise we're not even talking about the same thing. I notice that trend in these types of discussions...people start playing word games when the focus should be on what is MEANT by the words.
I honestly prefer using the term "state" rather than government for that very reason. I'm against a ruling class, a state, a government...whatever word you want to use for it, I just want to apply the non-aggression principle and property rights consistently to every person, even if they're labeled "government". That's the goal. Nobody gets an exemption from those rules.
I'm not talking about expelling people who are minding their own business, I am talking about expelling those who are deemed to be a danger because of their aggression.
And actually, no, I don't believe anyone consents to anything simply by virtue of being born. That's absurd. At the same time, when a child is born into a family or society, they are going to receive some advantages and be charged with some responsibilities as a result of that. I'm not really sure how you resolve this apparent contradiction, if consent is the only thing that matters. Please know that I am not speaking against the idea of consent, I just don't know right now, okay? I think sometimes we have to do things we don't want to, if we are going to live with other people at all.
I understand your point, but actually, defining what is and is not government was one of the main things I wanted to get to as a starting place. Now you have an idea of what I think it is, and I have an idea what you think it is. That will help further discussion, won't it?
I'm just glad you're at least trying to see our side and also hopefully think about the logical inconsistencies in statism.
What did you think of that final video I posted? It's really a great example of what we're getting at here.
I put up two videos I'm not completely enthralled with but found the one I had in mind as we talked.
But we agreed for you to watch and I would answer so I'll do my best.
At the end of my answers I have a great video that explains my positions perfectly...if you'll do 10 more minutes. If not, fair enough. My fault.
To your questions...
1. The videos claimed, as you have, that people can hire private security to protect them. What of those who cannot?
Under freedom each individual has the right to self-ownership, private property, and the fruits of their labor. Right now we don't of course. Your right to self-ownership, private property, and fruits of your labor always ends where the State's interests begin. We see that in drug laws, eminent domain, and forcing a baker to make a cake.
So those who can't hire private security may appear to be prey at first glance but digesting the new paradigm of freedom it is entirely possible, even likely, that they will be able to freely negotiate contracts with those that can afford security some protection of their own. Maybe they agree to be private security themselves for another private individual in order to pay any costs. Maybe they use their pre-existing occupation, while not being able to provide enough money for private security, as a negotiating tool in securing private security.
Example: Joining a union or association with "free" private security as long as you provide services X,Y and or Z. This is an extension of my first idea where they actually become private security themselves.
Remember, this is anarchy and the natural default setting of anarchy is a capitalist exchange.
If it seems like this mirrors a few paradigms already present in statism...you'd be correct. The difference is in statism you are forced to pay fees for services you neither agreed to or may not use.
Each individual would have to decide what is important for themselves and divide their time/resources/talents accordingly to attain the most of what they want.
This is foreign to us now as the government decides for us. We don't have to think...just pay the taxes. But you'll see in my next video (that I hope you watch) how freedom isn't a cakewalk. You have to think for yourself. We haven't had to do that in our lives. I never did it until I found anarchy.
What of those who can, but find their security outgunned by the lawless? Again, I maintain that a truly stateless society would lead to chaos, and the survival of the fittest, however that may be defined: strongest, best armed, most wealthy.
A few things here. First, what you are describing is the system we have now. The U.S. is the fittest State and all other nations bow to our interests.
If we use the conservative number of 110,000 dead Iraqi civilians from 2003-13 that would translate to 0.3% of their total population. All bullets paid for by you and me.
0.3% of our population is just a tick under 1 million.
Can you possibly fathom 1 million Americans being killed by a foreign State in a shade over a decade?
No. Because we've accepted this dichotomy of "us vs them". Our State vs their State.
Let that sink in as we move on here...
So what about within our own towns and areas? The biggest baddest dude simply taking over is a fear of yours.
Again, I hope you watch my video because it will explain this much better than I can but simply put in a free society everyone is allowed to put extreme societal pressure as well as provide HUGE societal rewards to mold behavior we generally want to have around us.
No gun restrictions. No restrictions on who you can deny service to. No restrictions on shunning.
Right now, if the biggest baddest dude in town robs Bob...what can we do?
Well, we can shun him. Doctors won't operate on him. Barbers won't cut his hair. Roofers won't put shingles on his house. Dentists won't fill his cavities. Plumbers won't unclog his pipes.
Why?
Because they don't want to do business with a nut. And oh yeah, the guy who the bad dude robbed...he had a contract with all kinds of folks saying nobody can do business with someone who robs him.
Right now disputes are handled by running to daddy (the government) and telling on the other party. This may or may not result in punishment. And punishment may not be punishment at all. Guy does a year or two in the joint, makes some key business contacts in there, gets out and everyone must serve him.
Basically, right now you know what is going to happen to you if you screw with somebody. Under anarchy, you better mind your P's and Q's. You never know what contractual agreements folks have that will make your life a living hell. And in that Switzerland example, you know everyone has a gun and is trained just like you. You got a death wish? Go ahead and try to rob a dude.
And all of this is done freely. Each individual is going to put more weight on things they feel are important to them. Me? I'm real big on punishing wrong doing through these non-aggressive/voluntary means. A career in criminal justice along with growing up in a ghetto has shown me your way not only doesn't deter crime, but actually encourages it.
It's going to be up to me to really give incentives to my neighbors to want to cooperate with me. That's why it would behoove me to not be a jerk and actually better myself to be able to entice them to want to do business with me. Get more flies with honey and all that...
One important question: is there a difference between the state and the government?
Not really. I interchange them a lot but both mean an involuntary centralized power that has a monopoly on force as well as other things in a society (money being the other major one).
People would form voluntary associations based on contract law with dispute resolution councils in a free society IMO. I hesitate to give you that as an answer because that is what I would do. I want you to think about what you would do. Again, the following video is going to shed some light on it.
So how about 10 minutes more? It will be painless and you won't even be taxed for viewing it!
I understand Rose gets a bit salty in talking to you statists here but try to be patient. We deal with you folks daily. It's tough! LOL
I am wondering if you have any thoughts about an earlier post I made, #263. It's relevant to this discussion.
You will be pleased to know that not only did I watch this video, I also watched the one about default anarchists, and started watching a couple of others, as well, which I will finish viewing while you look at my other post. I will come back and answer some of your other questions then.
Okay, back now.
In the first place, there are some things you should probably know about what I consider an ideal life.
I would love to live on the land, with a few other like-minded people, raising, hunting, and fishing for my own food, and as self-sufficiently as possible. I would barter for things I could not make or grow, and earn just enough money to get the things I could not obtain by other means. Off the grid, although clearly I would be loath to give up the internet. I do not like being told how big my house must be (I am a fan of tiny houses, which are forbidden in far too many places), how tall my grass can grow, or that having two pets is fine, but somehow having three is wrong. I think there are a lot of abandoned properties now owned by local governments that could, and should, be taken over by people in need of shelter.
If I saw a child locked in a hot car, I would break the window myself to rescue the child. Hell, if I saw a dog locked in a hot car, I would break the window myself. I have no problem doing what I must to protect the innocent. The thing I do feel a little odd about is deciding the appropriate consequences for the person who offends in the first place. I may be too harsh, some other individual may be too lax. That's why we have trials and juries. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the raw emotions of a single person. You mentioned dispute resolution councils, but isn't that a form of government? If they have any authority at all, I would think it is, and if they do not, why bother in the first place?
I agree that consensus is best (see, I did watch!), but the problem with that is, the larger the community, the harder that goal is to achieve. It's difficult enough to get 10 people to agree, how on earth do you do it with millions? Also, the more technologically advanced we become, the more specialized we become. It was probably pretty easy for people to make sure their food was safe, for example, when people either grew their own or got it from people they knew, but how does that translate to a world where most people get food they have no role in producing? They have to either trust those who regulate quality or those producing the food. Frankly, I don't have a lot of faith in either, but I hope that at least those regulating quality are doing so for reasons other than profit.
I know that you believe all can be done privately, but what of roads, for another example? Everyone uses them, directly or otherwise. Even those who do not drive benefit from their existence. Do we just do away with public roads? On a related note, what about people who would choose to drive without the required liability insurance? Let's say they get in a wreck and paralyze someone. What is that person to do, if the driver has no insurance and insufficient assets to compensate the person they have harmed?
There are a lot of things I don't like paying for, but they may benefit my neighbors. They may pay for things they don't like that benefit me. It's a trade-off.
My own desires are probably closer to yours than you think, in a lot of ways. I think that some of our biggest differences are more practical than philosophical.
As for the bits on war, no, I do not think we should be intervening all over the place. We've been in maybe one or two wars that were justified. The rest were not. And no, I am not a fan of American "exceptionalism." (See, I probably watched more than you expected me to.)
I'm just glad you're at least trying to see our side and also hopefully think about the logical inconsistencies in statism.
What did you think of that final video I posted? It's really a great example of what we're getting at here.
This may come as a shock to you, but I usually try to see both sides. Often, I do it too well, and tick off everyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) if these rights aren't inherent the alternative is that you're a slave or you can enslave another.
I do not like being told how big my house must be (I am a fan of tiny houses, which are forbidden in far too many places), how tall my grass can grow, or that having two pets is fine, but somehow having three is wrong. I think there are a lot of abandoned properties now owned by local governments that could, and should, be taken over by people in need of shelter. 
