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.
I have some ideas of how it could work, but I don't know for sure and it doesn't matter. Slavery is immoral, correct? If you asked me back when it was supported specifically how society would function, I wouldn't be able to tell you that we would replace slaves with giant robots that run on ancient plant juice and are more efficient and productive than slaves ever were, and that we'd have a huge surplus of food. You'd think I was crazy even if I knew the future and told you that.
We already been through the tumultuous times of Wild West lawlessness and nobody wants to revisit that phase so until you anarchists come back with some real solutions to real life problems, like conflict resolution in an anarchistic society for instance, we put anarchism back on the shelf right next to communism and other utopian ideologies.
Last edited by random_thoughts; 09-05-2014 at 12:32 PM..
We already been through the tumultuous times of Wild West lawlessness and nobody wants to revisit that phase so until the anarchists can come back with real solutions to real life problems, like conflict resolution in their anarchistic society, we put anarchism back on the shelf right next to communism and other utopian ideologies.
Anarchaism or Market Anarchaism (Agorism) isn't about ends. It's about freed means. When the means are free you've already "won" because the result isn't a contrived toxic cocktail of force and coercion. Utopia is free choice void of force. Whether you're dead from drinking filthy water or sitting on a beach with gorgeous women falling from the sky...both are utopia if the means were free.
Reading the exchanges in here reconfirms something I realized a little while back:
I'm convinced there's a switch in the brain that flips on (posters like TO103E, irspow, and myself) where you realize ANY outcome derived from free choice is better than a great/amazing outcome (in your eyes) where force/coercion was instituted by an illegitamate 3rd party (the State).
The point here isn't an "ism" or an ideology for all to live under. Even though I agree with most if not all the posters I mentioned above have to say I have no clue if we'd get along in a freed world. Maybe one of us doesn't want to share a resource with the others. The point is nobody is going to kill each other over the possibility that we may be inconvenienced by something the other one might do.
If the idea is to convince people that the philosophy is viable, it rather does matter.
Did you have a comment on the Bhopal example, by the way?
The way I see it, the goal isn't to convince anyone it would work (although I'm often willing to try). The goal is to get people to at least realize that the law is "an opinion with a gun" and understand that they advocate violence against people who disagree with them. Maybe it's justified in their minds, but that's what it is when you break it down. Sometimes I allow myself to get caught up in the details, but that's my main goal.
For your example, I remember this type of thing being discussed somewhere before but I'm fuzzy on the details...I might have to go back and find it again. If I remember correctly, it was determined that the threat of violence violates the NAP, so it would be justified to stop them. I may end up retracting that after I look into it again.
Unfortunately most anarchists come across as pure philosophers who couldn't be bothered with details and instead propose abolishment of the current system and simply promise that the population would somehow "figure out" how to defend itself against immoral (criminal) acts both internally and externally.
Of course, that's a no-go as nobody sane would risk his and his family life for a promise that things would some-how get worked out. What if they would not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
If the idea is to convince people that the philosophy is viable, it rather does matter.
Did you have a comment on the Bhopal example, by the way?
The way I see it, the goal isn't to convince anyone it would work (although I'm often willing to try). The goal is to get people to at least realize that the law is "an opinion with a gun" and understand that they advocate violence against people who disagree with them.
And I fully support that notion, if someone is a murder or a child molester they should be stopped by "an opinion with a gun". There is nothing voluntary about it.
Are you really asking the society to give up what it just has achieved: relative civility, safety and order.?
I have to warn you, that's going to be a tough sell
I'm convinced there's a switch in the brain that flips on (posters like TO103E, irspow, and myself) where you realize ANY outcome derived from free choice is better than a great/amazing outcome (in your eyes) where force/coercion was instituted by an illegitamate 3rd party (the State).
Then I trot out Union Carbide and Bhopal again. The outcome was derived from the free choice to run a pesticide plant in a risky manner. (Yeahyeahyeah, they claim it was "sabotage". Weak.) I, and many others, would argue that a 3rd party - the state, if nobody else would step up - had not just the right, but the obligation to coerce the plant owners and management to improve safety. Before their actions killed off 3,000+ people.
Are you going to argue that what happened was a better outcome?
Quote:
The point is nobody is going to kill each other over the possibility that we may be inconvenienced by something the other one might do.
That thinking is the height of insanity.
In real life, it goes way beyond inconvenience. And nobody wants to kill anyone over safe operation of pesticide plants. (I take it nobody sane feels it's a cause worth dying for, either.)
I however believe that there is nothing voluntary about following the laws. I don't want my neighbors shooting guns at 4am just because they feel like it.
What you "want" your neighbors to do or not do is no more important than what they "want" you to do or not do. You have no more right to dictate their lives because of your preferences/beliefs than they do to dictate your life.
Then I trot out Union Carbide and Bhopal again. The outcome was derived from the free choice to run a pesticide plant in a risky manner. (Yeahyeahyeah, they claim it was "sabotage". Weak.) I, and many others, would argue that a 3rd party - the state, if nobody else would step up - had not just the right, but the obligation to coerce the plant owners and management to improve safety. Before their actions killed off 3,000+ people.
Are you going to argue that what happened was a better outcome?
In real life, it goes way beyond inconvenience. And nobody wants to kill anyone over safe operation of pesticide plants. (I take it nobody sane feels it's a cause worth dying for, either.)
Then I trot out Union Carbide and Bhopal again. The outcome was derived from the free choice to run a pesticide plant in a risky manner. (Yeahyeahyeah, they claim it was "sabotage". Weak.) I, and many others, would argue that a 3rd party - the state, if nobody else would step up - had not just the right, but the obligation to coerce the plant owners and management to improve safety. Before their actions killed off 3,000+ people.
Are you going to argue that what happened was a better outcome?
Outcome! Outcome! Outcome!
You've got to break this mindset.
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.
