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.
Well that would be because historically there is a massive amount of confirming evidence that it is indeed naive and virtually no evidence that it is not, and no evidence that it is even possible to have an anarchic society that does not disintegrate on its own in short order. So yes, not surprising at all that you would hear that...
Anarchy could work if we lived like stone age tribesman. In fact anarcho primitivism seeks to remove all technology since it inherently leads to exploitation only when we return to a state of nature can we be truly free...
Anarchy could work if we lived like stone age tribesman. In fact anarcho primitivism seeks to remove all technology since it inherently leads to exploitation only when we return to a state of nature can we be truly free...
Even stone age man had tribal power structures, anarchy did not exist even then... hell even neanderthals had social power structures.
Going to be difficult to hold a fully contiguous discussion because some people in it are true anarchists and others desire a libertarian state, and the concepts are quite different.
Libertarians don't want to abolish government, they simply want to reduce it to the size where they can drag it into the bathroom & drown it in the bathtub.
AnCaps simply believe in having one less government to begin with.
You seek the perfect, which is also known as utopianism. I recognize that the perfect does not exist, that life and society can be messy, and that everything must be measured not just on its own, but in relation to the viable realistic alternatives. You want to "abolish the state" but seem to have a problem grasping that the "state" will always exist in any human society with more than 2 people, because it will be whichever entity controls the largest share of power.
Could there be a better system of government than what we have, I bet there could. But, it could also be much much worse. I don't need my society to be perfect, but I do want it to provide a sufficient framework to live a happy life with a reasonable amount of safety. So far it is functioning at a reasonable level in that respect for me.
I disagree that I'm seeking a utopian society.
I'm seeking a society based on the framework of the NAP and respect for private property rights.
Bad people will still do bad things. They will break it just like how bad people break the laws now even the State has a gun at all of our heads telling us not to.
I would argue that the State's monopoly on force only encourages bad people to get cozy with/work at the highest levels within it...hence the bulk of to all (I would argue) our politicians being the human incarnation of the devil.
If individuals had the right to own their defensive force (unlike now) they could pull it together voluntarily to form much more efficient and cost-effective ways to guide the general good behavior most folks want to see on the streets.
Hopefully not too offensive (we're doing well here ) but the idea that society is working ok for you so the infringements and preemptive uses of force by an involuntary 3rd party are justified is...well...very naive (what you guys always accuse us anarchists of being).
Just because the State hasn't F'd with you too badly as to disrupt your life is pretty meaningless to those who have had their lives ruined by the State...or worse...taken by the State.
Well that would be because historically there is a massive amount of confirming evidence that it is indeed naive and virtually no evidence that it is not, and no evidence that it is even possible to have an anarchic society that does not disintegrate on its own in short order (stable spanning more that a few generations). So yes, not surprising at all that you would hear that... sometimes when everyone you talk to keeps telling you something, you should listen.
People have never voluntarily policed themselves?
If it's human nature wouldn't a State predate humans or appear simultaneously with humans?
Yea, I know, it is clear that we both disagree on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
I'm seeking a society based on the framework of the NAP and respect for private property rights.
You will need enough concentrated power to make that happen to be able to overcome the concentrated power of the people who do not want that to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Bad people will still do bad things. They will break it just like how bad people break the laws now even the State has a gun at all of our heads telling us not to.
I would argue that the State's monopoly on force only encourages bad people to get cozy with/work at the highest levels within it...hence the bulk of to all (I would argue) our politicians being the human incarnation of the devil.
I disagree, I don't like a lot of what the state does. But one thing I do like is it provides enough of a concentration of force to where if someone wrongs me who has much more power than I do as an individual, then (ideally) they will not be able to just get away with it while thumbing their nose at me - I at least have a chance, where otherwise I would have none. It also provides enough power to defend against external threats, which would happily grind an anarchy into dust and pillage its natural resources. It replaces those threats with the threat of oppression by the government, which can and does happen, but can also be engineered in ways to attempt to reduce that threat as much as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
If individuals had the right to own their defensive force (unlike now) they could pull it together voluntarily to form much more efficient and cost-effective ways to guide the general good behavior most folks want to see on the streets.
I think this is a fantasy, whatever force you end up putting together owns the concentration of power and becomes the defacto government. At that point, if they decide, say, that they don't like the way you mow your grass, you can quit the group all you want and the rest of them can still lynch your ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Hopefully not too offensive (we're doing well here ) but the idea that society is working ok for you so the infringements and preemptive uses of force by an involuntary 3rd party are justified is...well...very naive (what you guys always accuse us anarchists of being).
I never said it was perfect, I don't think such a thing exists. I said that it works for me. And if it does not work for someone, well - they do have the ability to leave. At least in this particular government they do. Examples of ways it could be worse would be a place like North Korea, where they WONT let you leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Just because the State hasn't F'd with you too badly as to disrupt your life is pretty meaningless to those who have had their lives ruined by the State...or worse...taken by the State.
I agree, I do not give carte blanche devotion to the state or its actions, I just realistically see most of the alternatives as worse.
One of the best ideas of the founders of America was to create a system where the government is in competition with itself, essentially using the entity installed in the highest level of power to balance itself - achieved by splitting it into competing factions with their power, at least per orignial design, in equilibrium with each other. Checks and balances is a very good idea, but of course, nothing is perfect.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 11-02-2017 at 04:40 PM..
So you don't like answering the question. I get it.
Again I ask: You don't own yourself?
If I so desire can I not contractually sell myself to another person?
All day long I have to field the "what about roads?" question. Throw me a bone Chi.
I never said some collectives are more legit than others.
The 'people are property' argument is lame.
Here in this response you assert "A corporation is an extension of individuals voluntarily forming a collective", wouldn't the same apply to the government of the United States of America?
By the way, if one is employed by a publicly traded corporation, who is their employer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
People are private property. You own yourself (self-ownership). You can also sell yourself via contractual agreement.
A corporation is not a person. It could conceivably have contractual rights if the involved parties wished to set up their association in that manner. A corporation is an extension of individuals voluntarily forming a collective.
You should read a little more before posting such foolishness. You obviously don't understand Libertarian principles.
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.
) but the idea that society is working ok for you so the infringements and preemptive uses of force by an involuntary 3rd party are justified is...well...very naive (what you guys always accuse us anarchists of being).
