Help from Libertarians/Anarchists

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 8 of 18

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 6:13 PM

CTS

I think you're naive or perhaps willfully blind. Failed states are failed states because there is nobody to enforce any order. In most cases there isn't a government involved at all, that is part of the problem.

Listen to the radio sometime and occasionally you might hear that Sheik X in Iraq has been killed by Al Queda. Now who is Sheik X? He's a leader of a small community, probably the head of a family that makes up a small tribe about as close to your theoretical self governing community as you can find. This tribe has it's own militia, so it's not exactly like they are unarmed sheep meekly standing there ready to be culled. Neither they or Al Q are governments or governments in waiting, they are in fact two large groups of men with guns who oppose one another.

Your belief seems to go to this, that you individually or collectively with a few buds will outgun any opponent. I would argue this hasn't been thought through. If everyone is well armed as you say, if there is no easy mark you expect criminal types to just give up and find a real job?

They will change tactics just like Al Q did. They wont face your militia 6 to 25 and give you the advantage. They will take you down one at a time and give themselves 6 to 1 just like Al Q did with the Sheik. Or they will kill your son as a "lesson" or they will rape your daughter to make a point. Or they may just find another 20 friends... hey crims can be dumb too.

You are living the romanticized view of the old west, the idea that a few white hats or citizen patriots can always win through. Maybe you might be right in some cases but you are assuming that is always true.

My view is that if I were a criminal and I knew that I could rob your home and get away with it --- because who is going to investigate the crime, who will pursue a criminal once he's beyond your community?--- then why wouldn't I? Because you have a gun? So do I and I use it for more than you do and besides that assumes I'll let you have a chance to use it. Think on it, I'm not going to do this when you're armed and ready, I'm not going to do this when you have 20 friends just waiting for me, I'll do it when you take out the garbage or when your kid lets the dog out. I'll do it when conditions favour me, not you. With nobody to investigate, nobody to pursue then it's easy money. 60 miles that way nobody will likely even know about the crime.

And here we're talking the petty criminal classes don't get me started on what happens when Megacorp wants your house.

SIGNYM

Monday, January 14, 2008 6:53 PM

My god, Fletch2. The earth has just wobbled in its axis! You and I are once again in agreement! The libertarian concept is about as romanticized as the communist concept: From each according to his ability.... that state will whither away .... yada yada.

Yes, a new society will require a new paradigm. But there seem to be certain constants in human society, the one in particular that I've noted is that power concentrates. (In electronic terms it has a strong positive feedback.) Another is that although cooperation is more effective than competition, it needs a minimum threshold in order to work. Also, consider that organizations have a life of their own: A life span, a source of energy (power), evolution and adaptation, and motives beyond the motives of the individuals in it.

Assuming these constants are going to disappear because people have changed their way of thinking
is- as I said- well intentioned but naive.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Theoretically, an independent judge, paid for by both parties. If one party fails to comply with the judgement, who'll do business with them next time?

Quote:
What happens when one party unilaterally changes the conditions of the lease - or adds conditions to the sale?

They get sued, and if they don't correct, get a bad rep and lose business.

Quote:
Who maintains the currency used to buy and sell, or lease?

Independent banks issue currency backed by commodities.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I question how you could enforce this though. The assumption that both sides will accept the arbitration is just that, an assumption, without an ability to enforce the decision how exactly can you proceed? You say that people won't do business with them again but that naivey assumes that people have a choice. For example, recently my local energy company was found guilty of overcharging some customers, now the amounts involved are not small change, there was a judgement against them and they were tardy paying it and the class action people ended up going back to court. Finally they paid.

Now in this proto-anarchist system you describe who makes them pay? I mean they have a monopoly in the area, you can't chose to not take their service unless you want to take a hit on buying and running your own generator. So in practice they can keep the money, because there isnt actually a way to enforce their payment short of direct terrorism.

Even if we assume good faith on behalf of both parties it doesn't mean that a judgement is fair. If you go to arbitration absolutely believing that you are in the right and you lose, do you swallow that down and pay? In addition people seem happy to bang on about "legislation from the bench" if decisions don't go the way they want under the current system "oh that judge is too liberal/conservative/harsh/easy" are common complaints as it is, why would people necessarily accept the impartiality of an arbitor then when they don't accept it now? If a judgement goes against you and then you discover the other guy plays golf with the judge can you appeal? If the judge gets free holidays at the Megacorp resort, can you have him disbarred somehow for conflict of interest? Who would do that?

Wouldn't these arbitors end up having a lot of access to power with all the potential for misuse an graft that implies?

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 7:18 PM

Quote:
I think you're naive or perhaps willfully blind. Failed states are failed states because there is nobody to enforce any order. In most cases there isn't a government involved at all, that is part of the problem.

I think you've never been in a failed state. If there is violence, there is some entity enforcing its own order. In most cases, there is a monopoly of force terrorizing people, even if that entity is not officially recognized as "government."

Yes, sometimes people get murdered by other people. But this happens even with government, so I am not sure what you are getting at. That without government protection, murder and robbery rates will climb? I submit that government is the very entity commiting much of the murder and robbery, either in the failed states you pointed out, or under the guise of "law enforcement" in working states.

You want to talk about assumptions, here they are:

1. A monopoly of force doesn't become good magically because it is called "government."

2. Whoever has a monopoly of force will use that monopoly to further its own interests, whether to bid it out to the highest payer to rob folks, or to rob folks directly. Sometimes that involves kidnapping and murder. This happens whether the monopoly is called "government" or not.

3. The monopoly of force will justify its existence by protecting you from "bad" people. What it doesn't say is that they ARE the "bad" people. (Read, protection racket.)

4. The most direct solution is to prevent a monopoly from being achieved. This means everyone needs to be as well armed as he can possibly afford to be, and as well trained to use those arms as he can possibly afford to be.

5. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is not as naive as believing that whoever holds a monopoly of force will only use that force to do good, not evil.

Quote:
Your belief seems to go to this, that you individually or collectively with a few buds will outgun any opponent. I would argue this hasn't been thought through. If everyone is well armed as you say, if there is no easy mark you expect criminal types to just give up and find a real job?

No, I don't believe that we can outgun any opponent. I believe that murderers and robbers are predators who do what they do because it is relatively risk free to attack unarmed people. You throw in a high risk of death, and preying is no longer as attractive.

Quote:
They will change tactics just like Al Q did.

First of all, Al Q is not a predatory organization. It is a ideological organization whose members are more like soldiers. They are willing to go to any lengths for their ideology. So these aren't your typical marauders. We can deal with fanatics separately--because that means strategic war, not just simple home defense.

Quote:
because who is going to investigate the crime, who will pursue a criminal once he's beyond your community?

Victims or private "police" hired by victims.

Quote:
I'll do it when you take out the garbage or when your kid lets the dog out. I'll do it when conditions favour me, not you.

You'll do that now, even with govt police in place.

I think you misunderstand anarchism. It does not mean there will be no security forces (police, military, mercs, etc). It means there will be no monopoly of security forces, where one entity owns them all, and others have next to nothing.

Quote:
And here we're talking the petty criminal classes don't get me started on what happens when Megacorp wants your house.

When Megacorp wants my house, it comes to war, just like with AlQ. It then becomes beyond reacting to victimization.

Let's say Megacorp tries to achieve a monopoly of force, that is, tries to become a government. It buys up all the security forces, police and military. It has all the biggest guns in the area. This is no different than if Megacorp buys the public police dept and hires the best mercs, even with the oversight of bigger "government." The government doesn't send the military to this little tow

FREDGIBLET

Monday, January 14, 2008 7:22 PM

Fletch, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head when it comes to the problem of the "give everyone a gun and everything will sort itself out" idea. The only way to actually make that work would be to have a gun trained 24/7 on anyone and everyone you came in contact with, otherwise if I catch you when youu don't have your gun on hand or even if I'm just a faster draw then you are the fact that you have a gun doesn't really matter.

CTS:

You said:

Quote:
Quote:
We have places without governments, they are called failed states, they are places where armed rape gangs take what they want.

ONLY because the citizenry isn't armed. The existing government (failed or not) has prohibited gun ownership for eons. The people are sitting ducks, just as surely as the Jews of Nazi Germany. It is an entirely different story when people are armed

This is false, there are plenty of places in Africa where buying a AK-47 costs $100 from a guy on the street (not cheap in those areas but not out of reach of most people, kinda like a car is here). These places still have all the problems that Fletch was talking about and these places either never had strict gun laws or haven't had them for a long time. It's not as simple as just handing out guns and everything falls into place, both sides get guns and both sides can organize to get what they want.

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 7:45 PM

CTS let's talk philosophically a moment.

Right now I leave my house unarmed. There is a possibility that a nut, predator or ideologue could shoot me dead. However, though it would do me little good I know that should that happen the SOB responsible will have Texas Ranger's on his ass for the rest of his life and the FBI should he get beyond Texas. That at least gives me some feeling of security.

Now you want me to give up that security, have to live in a world where I strap on a piece everyday so that you can have your "freedom." Now I don't want to get into that whole freedom vs security thing. I'm just curious as to what freedom you currently lack (other than the implied one of taking the law into your own hands.) I mean if my security is going to be sacrificed I'm kind of curious as to what freedoms I'm buying here?

So tell me explicitly, what freedoms do you currently not possess that you would gain under your proposed system?

SIGNYM

Monday, January 14, 2008 7:54 PM

CTS- Yes you did say that you were going to knock down everyone to the same status, because in your mind if everyone has a gun they're all equal.

But it doesn't work that way.

Also, all you Liberts/Anarchs, look at it this way: All the time I spend guarding my house, person, property and family is time away from doing anything productive. That's one of the biggest problems in the failed states: Not lack of guns but the incredible waste of people and resources in an armed-free-for-all.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
This is false, there are plenty of places in Africa where buying a AK-47 costs $100 from a guy on the street (not cheap in those areas but not out of reach of most people, kinda like a car is here).

Have you been to these places? My husband has traveled extensively in Africa (east, central, west) over the last 20 years, and his opinion differs.

But let me take this opportunity to emphasize that when I say "armed citizenry," I mean, nearly everyone is armed and trained. Not just one or two people who can afford to spend 3-4 months salary on a gun. Cause you can pick those people off pretty easily.

So it isn't sufficient to be "allowed" to own guns. Economic conditions have to be such that regular folk can afford them. My husband hasn't seen such conditions in Africa. Hell, we haven't even seen such conditions in most of America.

Anarchism is a matter of breaking the monopoly. For good or bad, some entity has the monopoly in every part of the world.

--------------------------
One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license.
--P. J. O'Rourke

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- Yes you did say that you were going to knock down everyone to the same status, because in your mind if everyone has a gun they're all equal.

No, that is not what is in my mind. I have no desire to see everyone equal. That is communism, and I'm not a communist.

This is what is in my mind. If everyone is armed to the teeth, then it is harder for someone to get a monopoly on guns. (There is no statement on equality here.)

--------------------------
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
--Sir Winston Churchill

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
However, though it would do me little good I know that should that happen the SOB responsible will have Texas Ranger's on his ass for the rest of his life and the FBI should he get beyond Texas. That at least gives me some feeling of security.

I think that feeling of security is an illusion. You've been watching too much of Chuck Norris.

Here are some stats on clearances of crimes for 2006.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html
Be sure to put it in context of the percentage of all violent crime, violent crime rates, and the absence of data on missing persons (an unknown number of whom are also victims of violent crime). Anyway, one can see that you might have a Texas Ranger on his ass very briefly, after which it just becomes a cold case.

Quote:
Now you want me to give up that security, have to live in a world where I strap on a piece everyday so that you can have your "freedom."

Whoa!!!! Haven't I made it very, very clear it is not something I would impose on anyone else? If it wasn't clear, let me underline it now. I don't want YOU to give up anything.

I want to have my freedom yeah. But as I said repeatedly throughout this thread, I would not presume to impose freedom on anyone who doesn't want it.

Quote:
So tell me explicitly, what freedoms do you currently not possess that you would gain under your proposed system?

I'd like to sell homemade lemonade from my living room to the public without a health dept's license, or business license, or zoning permit. I would like to keep all the money I make from selling my unlicensed, unzoned homemade lemonade. I'd like to pay people to help me sell lemonade ALL of their agreed salary.

But gosh, it seems like no matter where you go in this world, a bunch of people with big guns want a cut of my lemonade money. I'd like to envision a world where those people weren't there, and I can make lemonade in peace.

So really, my vision has nothing to do with you. You are free to give whoever you want a cut of your lemonade money. I hope that makes my dreams a bit less threatening to you.

--------------------------
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
--H. L. Mencken

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE