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.
Did the government forget to fill a pothole in front of your house?
Heh u sure youre not just sensitive that there is no example of a functional anarchy in all of human history? There is no malice in my post but i dont sugar coat my thoughts either.
Interesting thought process. An anarchist can probably sum it up better than me but,.... An individual can defend property rights and not be called government but when a group does, that's government? You made it about the number of people instead of the actions.
Enforcing property rights isn't really government although enforcing contracts is a role of our government.
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?
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.
If god "grants" rights he must defend them or they mean nothing. Looking at history there is a blatant and glaring lack of such a divine defense. In fact, history is replete with situations where one would expect intervention from a just god, assuming one exists, yet it never materializes. Until someone can provide an example of such a defense occurring, I dismiss the idea as pure wishful thinking.
As far as anarchy goes, it works great until the first people realize the advantage of working as a group to push their own interests. After that point it just fragments into factions until we wind up right where we started. Wouldn't take long. Thats is why in thousands of years of human history, there are no examples of large scale successful anarchic societies.
That is reality folks, and it simply does not care about your pet philosophical concepts.
I see people make this mistake a lot. They believe that rights are some sort of guarantee, or that it's not a right if you can't enforce it. That isn't what a right is.
A right is simply a moral statement. You could say "it's a description, not a prescription". If you believe in the right to free speech, you're just saying it's WRONG for anyone to punish you or forcefully stop you from expressing your opinion. People can violate that right by knocking you out for your opinion, but that doesn't mean you don't have that right anymore...that's the "might makes right" argument, but might doesn't make "right", it just allows you to get away with a "wrong".
Does that make sense? I tried not to make it confusing but I have no idea if I succeeded there...
BUT I think we both agree that force is necessary to defend people's rights, and that can be done by a person, a small group, a large group, or whatever...doesn't need to be the government.
Example: a girl walking down the street has the right to not get raped, but if she's overpowered and raped, does that mean the rapist isn't violating her rights because she couldn't defend herself? Her right to her body still exists, but they were just able to get away with violating it. If she had a group of friends to fight off the rapist, then her rights aren't violated...and they aren't a government just because they organized to protect her.
Which brings me to the last point that working as a group isn't a government. If my friends and I get together and accomplish something, we're still just regular people with the same rights as anyone else. What distinguishes government from everyone else in society is the "right to rule", or societal permission to boss people around and take their money by force, where that's considered wrong if done by anyone else.
With that in mind, an anarchic society can last as long as enough people in that society reject the idea of giving a select group the right to rule over them. If someone says "we're the government and we're in charge now...pay your taxes and obey our laws" people need to reject them and defend themselves. It's 100% possible, and I think it's inevitable that something like that will exist in the future.
Heh u sure youre not just sensitive that there is no example of a functional anarchy in all of human history? There is no malice in my post but i dont sugar coat my thoughts either.
On a massive scale...no.
Usually a State exploits folks minding their own business eventually.
'God given' or 'Natural' rights are rights all people are born with. They are the most basic rights and are always there. Whether dictatorial governments honor and protect those rights is another question.
You could boil it down to "the right to not be aggressed against". You have the inherent right to live your life without being attacked, robbed, defrauded, or victimized in some other way.
It's a complicated thing to prove that human life is valuable, or that each individual has the right to not be assaulted, but think of the alternative...
You either have those inherent natural rights, or some other human being can decide you have no rights, and if they torture and kill you it's perfectly justified...because your rights are granted to you. You don't inherently have any. Which of the two seems more correct?
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 touched on some of this in my last post to you.
Anarchy simple means "without rulers".
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.
If god "grants" rights he must defend them or they mean nothing. Looking at history there is a blatant and glaring lack of such a divine defense. In fact, history is replete with situations where one would expect intervention from a just god, assuming one exists, yet it never materializes. Until someone can provide an example of such a defense occurring, I dismiss the idea as pure wishful thinking.
As far as anarchy goes, it works great until the first people realize the advantage of working as a group to push their own interests. After that point it just fragments into factions until we wind up right where we started. Wouldn't take long. Thats is why in thousands of years of human history, there are no examples of large scale successful anarchic societies.
That is reality folks, and it simply does not care about your pet philosophical concepts.
Agreed. If you don't defend those rights, then you have no freedom. Rights give us freedom.
You could boil it down to "the right to not be aggressed against". You have the inherent right to live your life without being attacked, robbed, defrauded, or victimized in some other way.
It's a complicated thing to prove, but think of the alternative...
You either have those inherent natural rights, or some other human being can decide you have no rights, and if they torture and kill you it's perfectly justified...because your rights are granted to you. You don't inherently have any.
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.
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.
