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.
Besides, anarchy cannot exist as a static state. People will form voluntary associations to protect their natural freedoms and coordinate their interactions.
I've tried explaining this a million times on this forum. Just give up.
My thinking is this:
Anarchy is the default position of a human at birth. You aren't chained to an involuntary association. Thus I'm an anarchist in this sense.
However
As you've pointed out anarchy as a static position is impossible. I would say nearly impossible. Less than 1% of the population, well less, would run wild like sociopathic nuts.
We already have those folks running around today. Even the mighty daddy government can't completely control them. My contention is that voluntary associations would reign in these folks quicker and more efficiently.
I also noted that a person "between" voluntary associations would be a temporary anarchist. These periods would be few and far between. And again, the percentage of folks previously in voluntary associations that benefited from them aren't going to blow up babies during their hiatus from belonging to a voluntary association. Nobody is going to want them in.
The statist mindset is frightening: without government the overwhelming majority of folks would go on raping, murder sprees until they passed out from exhaustion.
Retalaiatory? How about forcing people to drive on the same side of the road? Is that OK or falls under "initiation of force"?
I love the examples, and they do seem so simple, and they are if you accept that the roads are owned by the collective. I however, might not have the patience to slog through all of that nonsense. So for the sake of argument, let's pretend that everyone voluntarily agreed to fund the roads and agreed to the decision that everyone drive on the right side of the road.
Clearly, everyone that agreed to the above can be retaliated against when they breach that agreement. So no, in this hypothetical instance, a ticket or whatever punishment was agreed upon, is a retaliatory force against those who break their agreement to comply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
Can you talk to me in terms that make sense? What is "initiation of force" ? Am I "initiating force" when I make my 5 years old eat his veggies? Am I immoral or something? Am I "initiating force" when I expect people to obey traffic signs and laws? What are you talking about here?
How can you live in a society where obeying rules is voluntary?
Are you initiating force by forcing your kid to eat veggies? Of course you are. The trick to not falling to the default position of tyrant is in finding a mutually beneficial argument or situation that lets people voluntarily agree with you. If you need to use initiations of force to get anyone to do anything, you do not have sound reasoning or a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved.
If someone voluntarily enters into a contract with another they obviously consented to the "rules" laid out in the agreement. So punishing breaches of contract is not an initiation of force but rather retaliatory in nature.
An actual civilized and moral society would be completely voluntary. If you need initiations of force to "order" society, that society is obviously devoid of the necessary arguments and policies that would convince sane individuals to comply willingly in the absence of aggression. There is no reason or justification for "society" to take hostages. If there are those who do not voluntarily join, it is the right of society to refuse its benefits to those who do not join. And of course, said society still retains a natural right to use retaliatory force against those who initiate force against it.
For the insane who would still initiate force upon their neighbor, that is when moral retaliation is justified.
The statist mindset simply can't fathom how such a country based on voluntary association would build and maintain its power, communication and transportation infrastructures, or how would it defend itself against outside threats. We statistics can[t decide if you guys are so naive or so unimaginative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
I've tried explaining this a million times on this forum. Just give up.
My thinking is this:
Anarchy is the default position of a human at birth. You aren't chained to an involuntary association. Thus I'm an anarchist in this sense.
However
As you've pointed out anarchy as a static position is impossible. I would say nearly impossible. Less than 1% of the population, well less, would run wild like sociopathic nuts.
We already have those folks running around today. Even the mighty daddy government can't completely control them. My contention is that voluntary associations would reign in these folks quicker and more efficiently.
I also noted that a person "between" voluntary associations would be a temporary anarchist. These periods would be few and far between. And again, the percentage of folks previously in voluntary associations that benefited from them aren't going to blow up babies during their hiatus from belonging to a voluntary association. Nobody is going to want them in.
The statist mindset is frightening: without government the overwhelming majority of folks would go on raping, murder sprees until they passed out from exhaustion.
I've tried explaining this a million times on this forum. Just give up.
My thinking is this:
Anarchy is the default position of a human at birth. You aren't chained to an involuntary association. Thus I'm an anarchist in this sense.
However
As you've pointed out anarchy as a static position is impossible. I would say nearly impossible. Less than 1% of the population, well less, would run wild like sociopathic nuts.
We already have those folks running around today. Even the mighty daddy government can't completely control them. My contention is that voluntary associations would reign in these folks quicker and more efficiently.
I also noted that a person "between" voluntary associations would be a temporary anarchist. These periods would be few and far between. And again, the percentage of folks previously in voluntary associations that benefited from them aren't going to blow up babies during their hiatus from belonging to a voluntary association. Nobody is going to want them in.
The statist mindset is frightening: without government the overwhelming majority of folks would go on raping, murder sprees until they passed out from exhaustion.
Unbelievable.
True. And the collectivist tyrants are completely blind to their underlying, maybe even subconscious, faith that all humans are inherently evil. With a single exception being themselves (and those that they agree with) who are superior to their fellow man and that they should have the power to force others to live according to their personal beliefs like a God.
I love the examples, and they do seem so simple, and they are if you accept that the roads are owned by the collective. I however, might not have the patience to slog through all of that nonsense. So for the sake of argument, let's pretend that everyone voluntarily agreed to fund the roads and agreed to the decision that everyone drive on the right side of the road.
Clearly, everyone that agreed to the above can be retaliated against when they breach that agreement. So no, in this hypothetical instance, a ticket or whatever punishment was agreed upon, is a retaliatory force against those who break their agreement to comply.-
And what it some people don't agree to drive on the right side of the road? What are you going to do about it? Force them to drive on the righ or just let them drive the way they want to? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
Are you initiating force by forcing your kid to eat veggies? Of course you are. The trick to not falling to the default position of tyrant is in finding a mutually beneficial argument or situation that lets people voluntarily agree with you. If you need to use initiations of force to get anyone to do anything, you do not have sound reasoning or a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved.
I got ya. You should reason with your 5 years old until he starts eating vegetables or brushing his teeth
How old are you again? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
If someone voluntarily enters into a contract with another they obviously consented to the "rules" laid out in the agreement. So punishing breaches of contract is not an initiation of force but rather retaliatory in nature.
And who is going to do "the punishing"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
An actual civilized and moral society would be completely voluntary. If you need initiations of force to "order" society, that society is obviously devoid of the necessary arguments and policies that would convince sane individuals to comply willingly in the absence of aggression.
You see, the rest of us sane people here, don't believe you can actually reason with sociopaths and career criminals. But feel free to try. Good luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
There is no reason or justification for "society" to take hostages. If there are those who do not voluntarily join, it is the right of society to refuse its benefits to those who do not join. And of course, said society still retains a natural right to use retaliatory force against those who initiate force against it.
For the insane who would still initiate force upon their neighbor, that is when moral retaliation is justified.
Live and let live.
So if someone doesn't want to join, does that mean they can do whatever they want since they haven't join the society? Can they burn tires on balconies and have parties until 5 am?
Can they beat their kids and burn their dogs alive? Can they do that?
The statist mindset simply can't fathom how such a country based on voluntary association would build and maintain its power, communication and transportation infrastructures, or how would it defend itself against outside threats. We statistics can[t decide if you guys are so naive or so unimaginative.
There are already voluntary organizations that thrive.
I talked about growing up near the Amish in Ohio. They're more productive, efficient, and tend to operate within what most would call "good moral grounds" than any involuntary association I know.
Not a good example as the Amish enjoy the same protection from the state as any other citizen.
Also, not that they never managed to rpoduce or adopted any modern technology. is that your optimum lifestyle?
Let's see how well would Amish do in Somalia LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
There are already voluntary organizations that thrive.
I talked about growing up near the Amish in Ohio. They're more productive, efficient, and tend to operate within what most would call "good moral grounds" than any involuntary association I know.
Not a good example as the Amish enjoy the same protection from the state as any other citizen.
Also, not that they never managed to rpoduce or adopted any modern technology. is that your optimum lifestyle?
Let's see how well would Amish do in Somalia LOL
Here we go again.
So you're saying the only thing stopping the non-Amish in Ohio and PA from raping and robbing the nearby Amish is the U.S. government?
And what it some people don't agree to drive on the right side of the road? What are you going to do about it? Force them to drive on the righ or just let them drive the way they want to? LOL
Well if they don't want to agree to follow the rules of the contract. They should not be allowed to drive on the roads. (They also should not be forced to fund said roads either.) You can set up whatever punishment you'd like for those who don't follow the rules or who use the road and have not paid for it. I am not seeing what you are arguing here as I agreed that punishment for breach of contract is an acceptable form of retaliatory force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
I got ya. You should reason with your 5 years old until he starts eating vegetables or brushing his teeth
How old are you again? LOL
How old am I? I got another few decades in me I think I didn't say doing things morally was necessarily easy. It is always easier to just be a tyrant, especially in a society such as ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
And who is going to do "the punishing"?
Whomever the association appoints as the retaliatory force. Maybe a government? You still think that I do not believe in government right? I do believe that government COULD be legitimate and moral if it did not initiate force. However, when government initiates force, it is just as immoral as any thug on the streets when he does so to rob or whatever...or even to force you to eat veggies...LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
You see, the rest of us sane people here, don't believe you can actually reason with sociopaths and career criminals. But feel free to try. Good luck.
I agree. You won't be able to reason with sociopaths or career criminals because they believe that they have a right to initiate force. Hence, why it is moral to use retaliatory force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
So if someone doesn't want to join, does that mean they can do whatever they want since they haven't join the society? Can they burn tires on balconies and have parties until 5 am?
Can they beat their kids and burn their dogs alive? Can they do that?
When someone does not join the association that you are in, you have every right to retaliate against any initiations of force that they level upon you. You have no obligation to provide them any benefits of your association either. And whomever they initiate force upon has the same right to retaliate as well. The key here is if they do not join your association or do not initiate force upon you, it really is none of your business whatsoever.
So you're saying the only thing stopping the non-Amish in Ohio and PA from raping and robbing the nearby Amish is the U.S. government?
What I am saying it is easy to be a pacifist, like the Amish, when you live in a civilized country where the state provides all the security. How long would they last in Iraq? And yes, without the government, there would be plenty of people willing to rob the Amish in broad daylight.
It's similarly easy for you to be an "anarchist" or a "libertarian" when you never experienced living in a society without law, functioning infrastructure or healthcare.
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.
Are you initiating force by forcing your kid to eat veggies? Of course you are. 
