Help from Libertarians/Anarchists

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GEEZER

Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:46 PM

I've been doing some reading along the Libertarian line and think I get the basic concepts: Personal ownership of self & property, transactions based on contract and not coercion, instigation of force against person or property is wrong, governments are thieves/pirates/banditti who take by force.

My question has to do with the other (non-governmental) thieves, pirates and banditti, and their ilk. Rothbard, for example, thinks that the private criminal class will decline under L/A because everyone will have the opportunity to work and succeed, and won't have the example of the government ripping folk off to emulate. I have my doubts about this. There may be a more down-to-earth answer out there I've missed.

So, In a L/A world, who deals with the thieves, etc? The "everybody pulls out a gun and shoots them" answer sounds nice, but doesn't apply to a lot of situations. Some folks can't, or won't defend themselves and their property. Some can't even hire it done. If you capture a thief or vandal in the act, who insures that he pays you restitution? Who decides the amount? If you identify a murderer and he gets away, does anybody go after him?

Lots of interesting and worthy ideas in the stuff I've been reading, but it's the day-to-day stuff that sometimes puzzles me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:16 PM

I refer you to the online graphic novel version of L Neil Smiths "The Probability Broach", technically it's a political treatise, but it's a right good bit of storytelling in it's own right, and it does handle most of these issues, it's a fun read besides, as a bonus.

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=0

If you have any lingering questions after that, I'll be happy to answer em for ya.

Mind that it's more Libertarian than straight Anarchist, but I think it'll answer a lot of it, or at least help you refine the questions.

"Anything is possible if you're free."
-F

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:38 PM

I would add The Dispossessed by Le Guin to your reading list, though it is perhaps more on the anarcho-communist side of the political spectrum. But definitely emphasizing the anarcho. It's a novel, mostly set in a futuristic anarchist "state." Very interesting. Very, very interesting.

One of the interesting themes which it shares with "The Probability Broach" is an understanding that we won't be getting rid of vengeance and violence, but we won't be dressing it up in robes and calling it "law enforcement" either. If some folks get it in them to enact some street justice, well, that's what happens and the community at large deals with it carefully, fearfully, imperfectly--just as any community in the real world does. Violence is a rupture, but it is no less a part of life.

People want new and untried social systems to solve all of life's problems, but they won't. What I like about anarchism is that it mainly refuses to lie or make up fancy justifications for human aggression. It's real, it often causes problems and it ain't going away--but that doesn't mean it needs to rule our lives.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:45 PM

And once - under anarchy- we've gotten fed up with street gangs and water wars and suchlike, and have developed rules and ways to take care of the massive social unrest we'll be right back with.... government.

I find the whole notion hopelessly naive, and suited only to a system of primitive production.

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

FLETCH2

Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:53 PM

Ok the thing that puzzles me is how you deal with none government actors. If Megacorp moves into your community and starts pumping poison into the river outside your school how do you deal with that? A few good-ol-boys grab their second amendment rights and sort it out? What happens when they meet those awfully nice men from Blackstone that Megacorp has hired to run security?

If "justice" is bought with a gun doesn't the guy who can buy the biggest gun win?

GEEZER

Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I refer you to the online graphic novel version of L Neil Smiths "The Probability Broach", technically it's a political treatise, but it's a right good bit of storytelling in it's own right, and it does handle most of these issues, it's a fun read besides, as a bonus.

L. Neil is one of my triumverate of favorite authors named Smith, along with E.E.(Doc) and Cordwainer. I recommend Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" for another view of non-government in action. I'm familiar with the Broach-verse(to coin a phrase), so I'll frame my questions in terms of that book. (thanks for tipping me off to the graphic novel, BTW)

'Tricky Dick' Milhous breaks into Ed Bear's home and trys to kill Win, but is foiled. Once he makes it out the window, wounded but mobile, and assuming the Hamiltonians hadn't offed him later, what recourse would Win and Ed have had? Milhous is apparently known as a crook, and has remained in circulation for enough time to develop a rep.

Say that during the attempt to abduct Clarissa, she had winged and captured one of her attackers. The CLU takes evidence and there's a trial, but only if both sides agree. What if the captured attacker just stonewalls? Can there be a trial if he has not consented to participate?

I note that the villans in the Broach-verse are usually not that bright, and that the heroes sometimes step outside the "no force" concept in stopping them. Still great reading.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:09 PM

And then there this example: You get nailed on the freeway (Say, who built the freeway? Who owns it?) by some drunk driver who gets killed.

Somehow. ambulance companies are notified (Don't exactly know how 'cause you're passed out in the front seat, but- what the hell- this is a fantasy) You're whisked away by ambulance that you have no idea where they're taking your, or how good their training is (You're no about to dicker, and anyway, how do you figure out their reputation?) to another mystery provider- the hospital- which could just be a bunch of people who are only looking for body parts. (Because once again you have no idea who they are. You COULD look them up on the internet at your leisure... except, who owns the internet? But unless someone is willing to step in and rate these hospitals you only have their advert to go on.) and then you get billed for them putting your arms and legs back together again. But seeing as there's no insurance, and you weren't exactly in a position to dicker about the price and services you have to come up with a bunch of money. The guy who hit you has zero assets so you can forget about suing. You don't even have the satisfaction of shooting him 'cause he's dead. And now you're disabled for life, and can't do the work you used to much less defend yourself.

People do NOT survive as individuals. They survive as groups by coordinating and cooperating through mechanisms other than the "free market". And then there is the problem of "the commons", which NO market can take into account.

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

RUE

Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:42 PM

piddly details ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:02 PM

Signy, all you're doing is plopping anarchy down on top of our existing system and saying: see, it don't work! You remind me of former Secretary Watt's quip, "If you want an example of the failures of socialism, don't go to Russia, come to America and go to the Indian reservations."

Anarchism would not and could not simply impose itself on your life one day. Anarchism is really a pretty alien way of thinking from what we get stuffed down our throats in this country. Have you read The Dispossessed? Le Guin goes into great detail about the childhood and school age years of a boy growing up in an anarchist community. The values instilled in the young are in many ways antithetical to a lot of crap we take absolutely for granted in this country.

Your example of the ambulance ride is a nightmare of impersonal mega-communal living which in an anarchic system could not/would not function. If you actually want to live like insects in a hive, then anarchy would not appeal to you. Communities would be smaller and people would have a much more thorough working knowledge of how the community functions and who to trust and such. Anarchy is a system requiring tremendous personal responsability compared to our entranced consumer culture. Different communities would have a huge database which they shared with other communities, of which you as a citizen would have to have a working knowledge. Imagine if you had the kind of knowledge you have about our elected officials in Washington about the medical practitioners and other professionals in your area. Everyone would have to dabble in all kinds of civic minded avocations--volunteer this, volunteer that--anarchy is not a system for people who want to be left alone to wallow in privileged ignorance--such folks would not fare too well.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:17 PM

Hello,

Saying "It doesn't work that way" isn't going to help people understand.

We should take the example step by step.

1) You are struck by a vehicle on the highway (who owns it?)

2) The driver of the other car is killed.

3) You are paralyzed and in critical condition.

What happens next?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:27 PM

I haven't read the dispossesd, but if we are going to reduce the success of a system of anarchy to that of a change in paradigm introduced through some standard philosophy, I have a couple of questions,

how do you have a standard school system or else communal curriculum that imparts a standard philosophy if you choose not to have any standaradized education,for one

and two, if you are going to embrace the possibility that people are culturally influenced in their thinking, then why is a desire to do violence assumed to be so rooted? Couldn't that also be an issue of paradigm, and couldn't that be changed by new embodiment of communal values?

You could say that we have such values now and they do no good, but I'd argue that they are mostly schizzophrenic, even under a government with a somewhat standardized education system.

I will look up the dispossed and the other one mentioned though.

RUE

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:33 PM

HKC

I realize your post was directed to SignyM - but I wanted to reply.

A lot of what we take for granted in our current lifestyle - roads, cars, computers, the internet - is only possible b/c of large scale capital investment either by business or by government, or usually by both.

I have read The Dispossessed - it's one of my favorite books - but the philosophy and lifestyle LeGuin wrote about are very much different from our current one.

The Dispossessed - and a little thought - forms the basis of my main objection to FremD's preferred vision of the anarchic society - he seems to think it would be just like today - except without government and of course everyone has a gun, with the most important part being everyone has a gun (or three). An anarchic society with everything we have today but without government just isn't a possibility - if only b/c business will create the power structures that will eventually run people. And so there goes the anarchy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:39 PM

Basically, what the typical anarchist is talking about is Marxism. Although “anarchy” gets labeled solely “right-wing” in practice breaks down to either dueling warlords or Marxism. The idea behind Marxism is exactly what HK is talking about. Marx‘s utopia was a society of small agrarian communities living in harmony without government or the “consumer culture.” Karl Marx was the original anarchist, so to speak.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:55 PM

'Utopia' (Thomas Moore) might also be considered communistic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:55 PM

Geezer,

A l/a world would very much be like life outside Alliance control. In fact, many libertarians are attracted to the Firefly verse precisely because it depicts a hypothetical libertarian world so well.

It ain't perfect. You gotta stay on your toes, outrun dangerous gangs (be they organized or not), and fight bullies. There are no guarantees, and life really sucks when you are hungry and/or injured.

It's definitely not a lifestyle for everyone. I understand if people don't like this lifestyle, and I wouldn't want to impose it on them. That is one reason I stopped being involved in Libertarian politics. I mean, I vote for the poetry of it, but I have no wish to force onto others what they don't want.

--------------------------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
--Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

RUE

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:58 PM

RUE

Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:02 PM

"it depicts a hypothetical libertarian world so well"

The probem is, such a society can only exist as a parasite on a larger, non-anarchic society. It depends on that society for high-investment goods - like ships and medicines - that it can't manufacture for itself.

But at least the writers of Firefly figured that out.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And then there this example: You get nailed on the freeway (Say, who built the freeway? Who owns it?) by some drunk driver who gets killed.

Theoretically:

The freeway was built by the folks who own the freeway, having either bought the property or negotiated a lease agreement with the owners. You pay to use it, just like you pay income and gas taxes to use the government-built freeways.

You do have insurance (you can still contract for most anything), which provides ambulance and medical service to the specifications of your policy. They are vetted by companies (see Consumer Reports and Washington checkbook, but not non-profit) who provide their references for a fee (probably to the insurance company). Those who do badly go out of business.

I'm not sure that death absolves one of liability and the need for compensation in the Libertarian world, so the drunk's estate may be liable. This assumes that there is a function available to determine the driver was drunk. That's also a question.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If "justice" is bought with a gun doesn't the guy who can buy the biggest gun win?

This is always true, whether you have government or not.

Government is not only the biggest gun, but the only gun. Most political scientists define government as a monopoly of force. America is the only country on earth (correct me if I am wrong) that challenges this monopoly slightly by allowing its citizenry to own as many arms as they want, short of the really powerful ones.

So in other words, if we have to be ruled by a gang with the biggest gun, then we institute a system by which we have some say in who gets to hold that gun.

Thomas Hobbes defined freedom as power in small denominations. I think if you substitute "force" for "power," you get this:

Government = force in large denominations
Lib / Anar = force in small denominations

You also get this corollary:

Government = violence in large denominations
Lib / Anar = violence in small denominations

You get force and violence either way, there is no escaping it. It is just a matter of whether you prefer it all in one package (Alliance) or in little bits (outer planet gangsters).

--------------------------
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
--Mark Twain

RUE

Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:21 PM

CTS
You still haven't managed to say how the anarchic society can be self-sufficient, except at the most primitive level, which would be the level able to be achieved by very small groups of people.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:35 PM

Geezer

"The freeway was built by the folks who own the freeway, having either bought the property or negotiated a lease agreement with the owners."
How did the original owners get that property ? What keeps multiple people from claiming that property ? Who adjudicates multiple claims (other than roving bands of people with guns, that is) ? What happens when one party unilaterally changes the conditions of the lease - or adds conditions to the sale ? Who maintains the currency used to buy and sell, or lease ?

"You pay to use it, just like you pay income and gas taxes to use the government-built freeways."
Who vetted the information used to create an up-to-spec road ? Who checked the construction ? And most importantly - again - who adjudicates disputes in case of faulty construction ? Who insures that the road is indeed equally open to anyone and that everyone is charged the same price ?

"You do have insurance (you can still contract for most anything), which provides ambulance and medical service to the specifications of your policy."
How do you insure the insurance company WILL pay the claim ? How does that insurance company operate over multiple jurisdictions (for example, out of reach of it's spec'd ambulance service or hospitals) ? Assuming young healthy people don't buy insurance, how do you keep this from devolving into a pay-as-you-go scenario and unaffordable to the unlucky, ill or elderly ?

"They are vetted by companies (see Consumer Reports and Washington checkbook, but not non-profit) who provide their references for a fee (probably to the insurance company). Those who do badly go out of business."
How do you insure the vetters aren't merely sub-units of the insurance company (assuming there is no 'law' saying they have to be independent) ? How do you insure the vetters aren't unintentionally biased toward the companies giving them money ? What keeps the vetters from taking large sums of money to intentionally provide bogus reports to increase their profits (as they are 'for profit' it would be a temptation to inrease profits this way) ? Who researches and develops relevant, impartial and efficient standards ? Who oversees the standards used by the vetters ?

"I'm not sure that death absolves one of liability and the need for compensation in the Libertarian world, so the drunk's estate may be liable."
How does this differ from India where children are sold into servitude to pay off 'family' debt ?

"This assumes that there is a function available to determine the driver was drunk. That's also a question."
This also assumes that driving drunk is considered 'wrong'. How do you assign fault when there is no 'law' saying it's 'wrong' and therefore liable for compensation to the injured party ?

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:05 AM

Anyway, it's more within human nature to congregate and cooperate than it is to isolate and confront (US society notwithstanding - I consider it pathological). Even Socrates believed people came together if only for 'economic' reasons: "I think a city comes to be because none of us is self-sufficient, but we need many things."

Let's say people can effectively interact in a group of 100 (I think that's high, but it's only a rough estimate anyway).

Let's say a society needs roughly 1,000 people in order for people to specialize (I think that's low, but it's for the sake of argument).

Somewhere between 100 and 1,000, new and 'un-natural' ways of relating come into being - ways that aren't formed by the long chain of evolution in small groups.

We can either purposefully seek the best ways of congregating - or we can let them happen by chance, understanding that they are subject to 'initial conditions' and there's nothing naturally 'forbidden' about going down a hellish dead end.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:23 AM

Actually once specialization evolves there is no putting it back in the box unless you do something like China's cultural revolution. I doubt many doctors make good chicken farmers and probably few would want to. You would end up with people with specific skills that communities would have to find some way of attracting (or perhaps they steal doctors, like those cultists did with Simon?)

The reality will be that those folks with skills that the rest of the community realy on will end up running the place. The communities will end up being run by the guy that has the most land and/or the largest industrial employer, the doctor and the priest.

Even if you force the redistribution of wealth you would still have the problem that those folks that have specialist and rare functions will run things.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:36 AM

Quote:
(Say, who built the freeway? Who owns it?)

The fact that sovereignty goes hand in hand with land ownership is a big obstacle for anarchism (left or right). If I were to build an anarcho-libertarian country, I would make public roads one of the few functions of government. There are other solutions, but none so expedient and simple as public ownership of publically traveled land.

That is another reason why Firefly is such a great model for anarcho-libertarianism. Space travel frees us from the no-sovereighty-without-land dilemma. As long as one owns a running ship (which is not as limited a commodity as land), one has a shot at sovereignty.

God, I love Firefly.

--------------------------
...and we'll never be under the heel of nobody ever again.
--Firefly

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:38 AM

Fletch2

Maybe.

Not directly related but I came across this the other day, and it had an interesting connection to a virtually unknown fact.

Scientists wanted to see if bonobos or chimps cooperated better: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308121928.htm
"For example, two bonobos were more likely to both eat when presented with food in a single dish (rather than two separate dishes) than were chimpanzees faced with a similar feeding scenario.
Bonobos also exhibited significantly more sociosexual behavior and play than did chimpanzees under these circumstances. In a related set of experiments, bonobos were found to be better than chimpanzees at cooperating (e.g., by simultaneously pulling a rope) to retrieve food that was not easily divisible--that is, food that might be easily monopolized by one of the two individuals."

This relates to the inadvertent experiment (the unknown fact) Jane Goodall performed when she wanted to entice chimps out in the open - with a big pile of food. She spent weeks observing all sorts of dominance and aggression displays - before she realized that it was unnatural behavior caused by the food being in one spot, and easily dominated by an individual.

Now, I think we humans tell ourselves what we are and so actually form our 'human nature'. Humans are selfish. Humans are violent. Humans are competitive. But there is some native version of us that we start out with - and I'd say we're a lot more like bonobos than chimps. And maybe we should be encouraging our societies to reflect that.

BTW - that isolated village I mentioned in another thread - had some other big strong dudes. But they weren't nasty, they got along with people and did all sorts of Herculean tasks (and stunts) just for the recognition of it. To say people with a specialty will necessarily 'rule' everyone else assumes the opportunistic, cut-throat motivations we actively teach people.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Now, I think we humans tell ourselves what we are and so actually form our 'human nature'. Humans are selfish. Humans are violent. Humans are competitive. But there is some native version of us that we start out with - and I'd say we're a lot more like bonobos than chimps. And maybe we should be encouraging our societies to reflect that.

"

I'm not sure. In Sweden our company spent a lot of time and money on team building exercises some of which dealt with group dynamics. The conclusion that these courses came to was that in human interactions dominance/submission behavior is the low level "animalistic" parts of our nature and the co-operative response was the learned "higher" response. To use your examples we started out as selfish chimps but as survival required cooperation we learnt more complex cooperative social behavior because it gave us an evolutionary advantage.

When our children grow we "domesticate" them, we teach them the behavior we consider appropriate and the values that we as a group come to expect. I contend that in the absence of that upbringing people will behave selfishly because they don't see other people as being their equals and that in turn limits our in built capacity for empathy. That's also why governments in wartime try to dehumanize the enemy because most humans correctly raised by their group would tend to empathise too much with the enemy.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Even if you force the redistribution of wealth you would still have the problem that those folks that have specialist and rare functions will run things.

Left-anarchism, or pure communism, strives for the absence of hierarchy. In communism, specialization resulting in more wealth / power would not be possible.

However, right-anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, has no such lofty goals. They are only concerned with absence of institutionalized monopoly of force, or government. They have no problems with some folks having more power/wealth than others.

--------------------------
"My God! The thought of that evil man, loose in London--with money, from God only knows what source--fomenting riot and rebellion during a public emergency--and in control of an Engine-driven press! It's nightmarish!"
-- Gibson-Sterling, "The Difference Engine"

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Even if you force the redistribution of wealth you would still have the problem that those folks that have specialist and rare functions will run things.
Left-anarchism, or pure communism, strives for the absence of hierarchy. In communism, specialization resulting in more wealth / power would not be possible.

However, right-anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, has no such lofty goals. They are only concerned with absence of institutionalized monopoly of force, or government. They have no problems with some folks having more power/wealth than others.

Then I don't understand the point? If the contention is that government has become the instrument of the powerful then how does removing it help if the powerful can still influence things? I want your property? I take it and pay off the police force. Like an extreme form of eminent domain but cheaper for me and even suckier for you.

I have a question. A thief breaks into a house steals the owners gun and uses it to hold him up. Is this the gun's fault or the owners for not keeping it close to hand. Should we ban guns to remove the possibility of the ones we own being used against us or should we just maintain better control of the ones we have?

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:02 AM

Fletch2

You're looking at people brought up in a large, individualistic and competitive society (even in Sweden). But you could look at the !Kung (in their original format, not their 'settled' drug-addled version) with origins thought to be closest to the original human ancestors - nomads who survived based on little more than the mutual goodwill of the members of each group. That and digging sticks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:07 AM

CTS

money = influence
force = influence

therefore
money = force

That puts your buds - business - in the picture.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch2

You're looking at people brought up in a large, individualistic and competitive society (even in Sweden). But you could look at the !Kung (in their original format, not their 'settled' drug-addled version) with origins thought to be closest to the original human ancestors - nomads who survived based in little more than the mutual goodwill of the members of each group.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

How many of those people are blood relations though? My grandmother's maiden name was Newton, where I come from almost everybody is a Newton if you go back more than 3 generations. I have an extended family group like you wouldn't believe, and people do treat family differently from outsiders.

I can quite happily believe high level's of cooperation in small groups, especially if they form an extended family group but I think the underlying dominance dynamic still exists and I'm inclined to believe it's very primitive precisely because cooperation offers so may advantages. Why develop competative/ dominant behavior after a cooperative one is established? In most cases it would be a step backwards and restrict your chances of survival.

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:27 AM

And that small-group cooperation pattern is how humans evolved. It's in our blood. The challenge is to construct a society that translates the dynamic to larger groups. Or suffer the consequences.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Then I don't understand the point? If the contention is that government has become the instrument of the powerful then how does removing it help if the powerful can still influence things?

Right-anarchists don't have a problem with influence; they just have a problem with force. Sometimes there is a thin line between the two. But most times, force uses a gun, and influence doesn't.

Quote:
I want your property? I take it and pay off the police force.

First, in anarchism, there is no "police force" as we know it. There is no "authority" to run to for help. Think Firefly again. They want Mal's property, they have to fight him for it. Sometimes, they succeed without much of a fight; luckily, Mal and his buddies are pretty good at defending themselves, and don't get robbed too often. You survive with a good aim and smarts.

Quote:
I have a question. A thief breaks into a house steals the owners gun and uses it to hold him up. Is this the gun's fault or the owners for not keeping it close to hand. Should we ban guns to remove the possibility of the ones we own being used against us or should we just maintain better control of the ones we have?

Think Mal again. Would he blame the gun?

Joss is a liberal, but he created the quintessential anarcho-libertarian in Mal's character. Mal is a good reference point for all such questions. Frankly, I am duly impressed that Joss et. al. understand libertarianism that well.

--------------------------
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
-- Mark Twain

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:39 AM

Eagles = birds
Penguins = birds

Therefore eagles = penguins.

--------------------------
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
--Mark Twain

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:42 AM

Still wondering if you have an answer to the fact that that kind of society can only exist as a parasite on a larger one. Something Joss also figured out.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:56 AM

BTW it's not a trick question. It takes a lot of investment to make that 'nothing part'. That means a really rich company. Now a really rich company can keep its wealth by investing in good governmental relations - or assuming it's all anarchy - by investing in guns and gun-slingers. And in effect being the force you don't want.

So help me out here. How does this work ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 3:13 AM

Still didn't answer the question, even tho it was posed a half dozen times. That's OK. I get it. You have no answer so you have to ignore, avoid and distract.

BTW, the if a = b and b = c then a = c thing is basic mathematics (and logic). You have to be careful to choose and make sure that 'a' really does = 'b', and so on, which I did. And which you failed to do. Good luck with the logic thing. You'll need it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 3:17 AM

So here's the question again for anyone to answer -

How can one make a high investment good (like a space shuttle) in an anarchic society ? In which I might add, there are no large dominating forces, whether public or private, so that people really are individually 'free'.

***************************************************************
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty."

Note there are TWO conditions for anarchy -
a lack of government
absolute individual liberty

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 3:28 AM

Withdrawn

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 3:51 AM

Bumped to see if there will be any quick answers.

As far as I can see, a complex technological society CANNOT be anarchic, by virtue of the economics of large investment.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 4:16 AM

Before I go - though it may not seem like it, I'm working on playing nicer.

But it's going to mean a few broken crowns during practice.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, January 14, 2008 4:28 AM

Well, you're irritating the hell out of me and I agree with you.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:06 AM

My ability to alienate ... something or other. You get the drift, I'm sure. I have few talents, but apparently that's one of them.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Then I don't understand the point? If the contention is that government has become the instrument of the powerful then how does removing it help if the powerful can still influence things?
Right-anarchists don't have a problem with influence; they just have a problem with force. Sometimes there is a thin line between the two. But most times, force uses a gun, and influence doesn't.

We'll get back to this later.

Quote:

Quote:
I have a question. A thief breaks into a house steals the owners gun and uses it to hold him up. Is this the gun's fault or the owners for not keeping it close to hand. Should we ban guns to remove the possibility of the ones we own being used against us or should we just maintain better control of the ones we have?
Think Mal again. Would he blame the gun?

I asked the question for a reason. You see every time the gun debate comes up I hear the same quotes things like

"A gun's just a tool and you don't blame a tool." and "Guns don't kill people it's people that kill people." You could argue that a thief could come into your home, steal a hammer and use it to beat you with. That being the case it would be stupid to ban hammers right? I mean the tool isn't responsible for how it's used. If you had kept that gun close to hand you would have been the guy using it against the thief not the other way around? The gun isn't at fault if you don't control it well enough and allow it to be used against you.

Let us accept that premise, the gun is a tool, the hammer is a tool. Now here's the thing, government is a tool, it was created by the people with the intention of being used for a variety of tasks including defending them, just like that gun was made to be used for defence.

Now if we accept your argument that bad people have taken control of your government and are using it against you then the fault is yours, you should have been more careful with it. You have a weapon (the government) for your self defence and you let a thief take it from you and use it against you. The weapon isn't responsable you are. The irony here is that you probably wouldn't call for a ban on guns just because one could be stolen and used against you and yet here you are arguing just that for the best weapon you have.

I've heard people say that banning guns won't work because all it does is take them out of the hands of honest citizens because the thieves will still have theirs. That's true in this debate too. Any mobster, corporation or lunatic that can get a few hired killers together could rule the roost.

The situation is like having a magnum in your bedside table and being so scared that it might be used to kill you that you get rid of it leaving yourself at the mercy of any punk with a .22.

If you are so convinced that government is being co-opted then take it back. It's your weapon only you are to blame if someone uses it against you.

Quote:

Joss is a liberal, but he created the quintessential anarcho-libertarian in Mal's character. Mal is a good reference point for all such questions. Frankly, I am duly impressed that Joss et. al. understand libertarianism that well.

Mal is a fictional character, the hero of a TV show strangely enough things are set up so he can win. Reality is a little different. In westerns the claim jumper who threatens the rancher and his virtuous family is seen off by John Wayne, or Audie Murphy. In real life guys like that and their families were murdered because no matter how many guns they had in the house a determined man could always buy more....

There was something else

Quote:

Right-anarchists don't have a problem with influence; they just have a problem with force.

What the hell is a "Right-Anarchist?" It sounds like neo-con somebody that wants to purloin an idea he really doesn't really agree with?

HKCAVALIER

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:22 AM

Aiyee!

Rue, jeez, don't know what to say. I've never seen you so snarky with someone who isn't an ideological monster or authoritarian lapdog. I think you're comin' down a little ton-of-bricksish on CTS who may simply have a RL > RWED situation going on.

Here's my answer to your parasitism quandary. In the sense that you're using the word, I would say that we are all parasites on the achievements of the past. Perhaps, Marx is correct and human culture is in an evolving, developmental process. Maybe statism as we know it is a phase in human cultural development like adolescence. Unavoidable, but dangerous as all get out if developement stops there. So the corporate culture that a future anarchistic moment would "parasitize" is its own past. Perhaps anarchy would represent a total lack of materialistic, technological progress beyond its point of departure. Maybe humans would live for a millennia or two without wars and without a lot of technological development beyond what we see now. Until there's a social revolution and the anarchic age passes away beneath some future army's heels.

Maybe anarchy wouldn't be the final chapter in human social development; doesn't mean it would be the nightmare that leaps so readily to mind.

Am I the only one that sees a low grade hysteria in the questions/accusations coming from the folks that profess not to "get" anarchy? I guess it's unavoidable to a degree, but I find it fascinating that the very idea of anarchy is such a hot button. It seems to strike a pretty deep chord with all kinds of people.

And I gotta say your syllogism, Rue, doesn't make any more sense to me than it did to CTS. Money is a kind of influence, for there are surely many forms of influence other than money (love, for instance). Same with force; force is only the crudest Newtonian form of influence. Since there are other types of influence besides money and force, then money does not equal force just because they're both a kind of influence.

Rue, what's going on over there?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I recommend Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" for another view of non-government in action.

I was just gonna plug that, and some of RAH's later work- parts of The Number Of The Beast, The Cat Who Walked Thru Walls, and the some of the other late novels touch on Libertarian ideas.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
'Utopia' (Thomas Moore) might also be considered communistic.

Not pickin' on YOU, as I have no desire to offend, but so might the society envisioned by the disciples of Jesus Christ. Read the Book of Acts. Also the history of the early brotherhoods-- the Franciscans come to mind...

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:42 AM

The reason why I put that in was b/c sometimes people throw labels around, and I think we're supposed to be distracted and react to the labels. So I put in a label of my own that seemed apropos. Anyway, it seemed like the thing to do.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
As long as one owns a running ship (which is not as limited a commodity as land), one has a shot at sovereignty.

AS the old cliche has it: " What is a boat? A hole in the water into which you throw money. What is a bigger boat? A bigger hole."

And a space ship would be an even bigger hole. . Witness Mal's recurring troubles with morality and the need to fuel the ship, do maintenance and feed the crew.
He's LUCKY to be scraping by from crime to crime, dealing with folks who diss him and cheat him. Somebody more honest, less brutal, and slightly less lucky would run out of oxygen to breathe and protein to eat, and would wind up either dead or stranded somewhere, unable to afford fuel to boost the ship.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Now if we accept your argument that bad people have taken control of your government and are using it against you ...

Wait, did I ever argue that?

I think govt is an inherently evil tool, just like some people think guns are inherently evil tools. The issue is, do we ban them only in our own lives, or do we ban them for everyone, whether they like those tools or not?

I used to want to ban govt for everyone, until I realized I had no right to do that. So now I am just trying to figure out how to get it out of my own life.

Quote:
Any mobster, corporation or lunatic that can get a few hired killers together could rule the roost.

Yeah, but you missed the point. They won't have a monopoly on force, like govt has a monopoly. As I said, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics represent force in small denominations vs. the big denominations of govt.

Quote:
The situation is like having a magnum in your bedside table and being so scared that it might be used to kill you that you get rid of it leaving yourself at the mercy of any punk with a .22.

It is more like having a magnum that you know WILL kill you vs. taking your chances with the punk with a .22. (Yeah, the analogy breaks down a bit here, but it's a good one.)

Quote:
In real life guys like that and their families were murdered because no matter how many guns they had in the house a determined man could always buy more....

And "guys like that" can always buy more as well... Yeah, some of those guys died, but some didn't.

Look, govt has always been supported by the argument that you need them to protect yourself from punks, mobsters, corporations, lunatics, etc. IF you can trust the govt to do the protecting that is. What gives govt the magical ability to be exempt from punks, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics? I say, you have to fight punks, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics whether they are in govt or not. I'd rather have them separate than all united under magical umbrella of "authority."

Quote:
What the hell is a "Right-Anarchist?"

Right anarchists are folks who want to distinguish themselves from the original anarchists, the communists. They accept that hierarchy is impossible to abolish, so they simply want to abolish government.

--------------------------
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
--P. J. O'Rourke

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think you're comin' down a little ton-of-bricksish on CTS who may simply have a RL > RWED situation going on.

Thank you for noticing, HK, and saying something.

Rue's just that way with me. The man can be civil to most folks--just not to me.

Anyway, recently, I swore off talking to Rue after some rather nasty attacks pissed me off. So that is why I ignore his posts.

(Except for the "eagles = penguins" post. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.)

--------------------------
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
--Bertrand Russell

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
He's LUCKY to be scraping by from crime to crime, dealing with folks who diss him and cheat him. Somebody more honest, less brutal, and slightly less lucky would run out of oxygen to breathe and protein to eat, and would wind up either dead or stranded somewhere, unable to afford fuel to boost the ship.

Yup. It's a hard life, living "free" from government protection.

Yet, that is what some of us want. Funny, I'd rather die "free" than live "protected." Something wrong with my noggin, I suppose. America used to be attractive to people with this affliction. And life here was just as hard, compared to "protected" Europe.

Don't worry. I have no wish to impose this hard life on others. If I ever die "free," it will be on my own land.

--------------------------
A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.
--Sir Winston Churchill

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, January 14, 2008 6:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Any mobster, corporation or lunatic that can get a few hired killers together could rule the roost.
Yeah, but you missed the point. They won't have a monopoly on force, like govt has a monopoly. As I said, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics represent force in small denominations vs. the big denominations of govt.

Tell that to the guys in Africa, trying to survive between feuding warlords and crime bosses. How is a society in which you have to navigate a lawless terrain any more free then a society where a government enforces a rule of law? Wouldn’t you say that we are much freer with a government then they are in Sierra Leone or Somalia?

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Look, govt has always been supported by the argument that you need them to protect yourself from punks, mobsters, corporations, lunatics, etc. IF you can trust the govt to do the protecting that is. What gives govt the magical ability to be exempt from punks, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics? I say, you have to fight punks, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics whether they are in govt or not. I'd rather have them separate than all united under magical umbrella of "authority."

A bunch of small “governments” running around competing for supremacy just means you have that many more “oppressors” to deal with, then just one large government.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 6:33 AM

HKC

For the interim it's probably best if I don't interact with CTS. And, for various medical reasons my temper has been shorter than usual lately.

I have no issue with anarchy per se. I'd like to see a form of it, personally.

What I don't think makes sense is to think that we can have anarchy and have the REST of society be EXACTLY the same as it is today. To have all the infrastructure, complex technologies etc. It takes a lot to - make a chip - for example. Ores from around the world, high-investment facilities like chip-manufacturing plants, complex measurements to make the lasers that make the chips. That investment (and I mean in terms of accumulated knowledge, consensus and work as well as money) is SO high it simply can't be made in a society that negates large concentrations of power.

And unlike CTS I see corporate power to be just as corrupting, evil and dangerous as government power. The idea that somehow corporations will be nice and not pollute, pay everyone fairly, and not have their own goon squads run the place - without some muscular social bounds placed on them - just isn't borne out by any slice of history.

So IF we ARE to have a technological society, we will need some form of organization, and the brakes in place to make sure - as a group - that it doesn't run out of control and try and bite us. Whether it is private, or public, or both.

My equations were a shorthand answer to CTS's equations, which were themselves fatally flawed. So here is the extended version of my response:

"Government = force in large denominations
Lib / Anar = force in small denominations
You also get this corollary:
Government = violence in large denominations
Lib / Anar = violence in small denominations"

First of all CTS doesn't seem to know that private entities - like multinational corporations - are quite capable of meting out LARGE scale - multinational - force and violence on their own. The second objection is that government MAY have the function of representing people at large, while private entities NEVER do. They represent their profits, nothing else. The third is that governments that are representing people may actually be performing large scale tasks people want done but can't do individually, and not actually have a violence/ force function.

These are awfully big things to innocently leave out.

Anyway, I'd like to chat some more but it's way past time when I need to be going. Perhaps when I get back this will still be a topic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, January 14, 2008 6:47 AM

I side with Peter Kropotkin (See Also: Mutual Aid) in acknowledging one thing folks seem to be missing.

Human nature, is NOT that vile - our society, the social structures forced on us by the collective of Govt, the education-indoctrination system and mass media have made it so, and it has gotten progressively worse over time.

The fiction that human nature is oh so horrible and that's just the way it is and therefore any effort to change it is wasted... and in the face of some pretty solid evidence to the contrary, is just an excuse to maintain the status quo and not expend the effort.

Human beings are cooperative by nature, not sociopathic and exploitive, we're TAUGHT that, by a society that demands it in order for the one to progress and succeed at the expense of the many.

Many BS excuses have been used for that, from divine right of kings, to Ayn Rands ludicrous captains of industry, but in the end when you have a system that rewards a certain behavior, that behavior is what you'll get.

Most people want enough to live on in comfort, to do something that can take pride in, to collect the resources to keep their household in order, and to relax and spend time with their family, raise their childen - at the base, that is what they WANT, and Governments put obstacles in there as a form of training folk to jump through the hoops, conditioning that obedience over time to the point where it's automatic to even the most ludicrous, ridiculous demands.

A few, a VERY few, people want to take what others have, but without a structure and organisation, without the aiding and abetting of well trained doormats to lay down and take it without resistance, they are not so much of a threat, unless resources are scarce - which will provoke more of that conduct.

And I can blow up the fiction that such communities would implode with two mere words.

The Amish.

What's the difference ?
The Government and it's shills do not attack them, encourage and quietly support harrassment and vigilante action or outright storm the place as has happened to any, every, Anarchic community in history, cause the Amish aren't really any threat to them.

Having read through this discussion after having been out of town all day, it becomes clear to me that this is working as well as describing the color green to a person born with no eyes, the mental disconnect is just too great for mere discussion to bridge the gap - there would have to be something more to build that bridge, and overcome the terror of crossing it.

In fact, it seems almost like some form of Stockholm Syndrome, you ask me, in combination with a fear of the unknown I have trouble comprehending due to my own diminished emphatic capacity.. I don't understand em, somehow I can't understand em, at that level, it.. just... doesn't... click, anywhere.

And I think that's a problem in both directions maybe.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, January 14, 2008 7:07 AM

The Amish have a very strict theocratic leadership, and you wouldn’t last a minute in an Amish community. For one thing, your whole conception of self defense would go out the window.

The US couldn’t exist if we were all Amish. No one’s doubted that independent agrarian communities exist. What is being questioned is that such a society could function in the modern world or on any kind large scale. If you try, what you will get, is dueling warlords or totalitarianism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 9:06 AM

I'm sorry CTS but I'm detecting a certain amount of bullshit here so I'm calling you on it. We have places without governments, they are called failed states, they are places where armed rape gangs take what they want. Yes I suppose in theory you and a stout group of patriots could fight them off but in the real world you'd get your wish of dying free if you tried that.

I understand the attraction -- who wouldn't want to live like Mal? But if you look at the background of the 'Verse you'll see that not only does he have things very easy compared to some others but he's also relatively unique. For every Mal there are countless hundreds of Mudders working for almost nothing. For every Inara there are girls like the one Badger was "inspecting" in the pilot, who are bought and sold. In the absence of someone to keep the lowlifes of the world in check they will fuck with you just because to be honest you or you and a few friends wont be enough to stop them.

So there it is, the fantasy, the TV show is you as steely eyed gun toting individual. Reality is you as the victim of the first individual or group better armed or just more ruthless than you are.

Enjoy.

RUE

Monday, January 14, 2008 9:25 AM

Well, I'm back briefly ... seems no one else is around. So I'll just talk to myself a bit ...

I don't believe most people are inherently 'evil' (though some are). But I do think in large societies - >1,000 - human technology has gotten ahead of human evolution, leading to unnatural situations - ending up like fruit piled in one place and chimps going crazy over it. With excess resources available, the people who really are evil will ultimately gain control of a little in excess, which they will leverage to gain even more, and more control ... and so on.

The problem with corporations as an organizing principle for society is that they are created around gain and run without social feedback. They are in effect sociopaths. (And also, I might add, run on an unnatural model of human behavior that requires a total lack of trust and empathy.)

Government OTOH CAN be an expression of the will of the people - representing their interests as a group and the commons that all people depend on. So if you have corporations you have to have government to countervail - but you also have to make sure that it is representing your interests and hasn't been hijacked by business.

BTW - one way for government to function without the 'big stick' of violence is just for it to withold its cooperation. To not recognize, enable or support a function or organization. You don't want that factory over there 'cause it'll pollute your water table ? ? You don't pipe it water - or build a sewer, or road, or a run the grid up to it. You don't protect its 'property' from theft, fire, vandalism. Nor do you recognize its right to an exclusive tenancy on the land. There are all sorts of ways to do that without a single instance of government 'force'.

I would like to see a form of anarchy. But it would be a world unlike the one we live in. Unless someone can tell me how massive investments can happen without coercive corporations - or coercive / organizational governments, that is. That's still the outstanding question for me, and the reason why I still say that a technological anarchy is invariably parasitical. It just can't produce the technology of a society with concentrated investment power.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:30 PM

Quote:
Tell that to the guys in Africa, trying to survive between feuding warlords and crime bosses.

There, you have feuding warlords, crime bosses, AND government all competing for power. Just because the state is incompetent (failed to consolidate their monopoly) doesn't mean the state doesn't exist.

--------------------------
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
--Bertrand Russell

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I'm sorry CTS but I'm detecting a certain amount of bullshit here so I'm calling you on it.

Haha. By all means.

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.

Quote:
Yes I suppose in theory you and a stout group of patriots could fight them off but in the real world you'd get your wish of dying free if you tried that.

How do you know that? How is a band of armed citizens different from a band of armed robbers? How can you be SOOOOO sure that the citizens would lose?

Quote:
For every Mal there are countless hundreds of Mudders working for almost nothing.

Because they are not armed.

Quote:
Reality is you as the victim of the first individual or group better armed or just more ruthless than you are.

Reality is that when you are armed and not a sitting duck, easy victim, the gangs move on to easier targets. To be sure, one has to have a certain amount of "ruthlessness" as you call it, a lack of hesitation to kill in self-defense to take on one's own security responsibilities. But it is not any more "ruthless" than whoever were to take on those security responsibilities for you (e.g. police or military).

BTW, just because people want freedom doesn't mean they are individually isolated and can't "gang up" to defend their communities from marauders.

--------------------------
I have only one superstition. I touch all the bases when I hit a home run.
--Babe Ruth (1895 - 1948)

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
A few, a VERY few, people want to take what others have, but without a structure and organisation, without the aiding and abetting of well trained doormats to lay down and take it without resistance, they are not so much of a threat, unless resources are scarce - which will provoke more of that conduct.

Thank you.

Quote:

In fact, it seems almost like some form of Stockholm Syndrome, you ask me, in combination with a fear of the unknown...

And a measure of cognitive dissonance... People have to come up with a rationalization for why they "chose" to have government telling them what to do all their lives. It MUST be good, because I can't live willingly with a bad institution.

--------------------------
I have been through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.
--Mark Twain

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And unlike CTS I see corporate power to be just as corrupting, evil and dangerous as government power.

For the record, I have never said corporate power *wasn't* corrupting, evil, and dangerous. To my recollection, I have never said anything positive about corporations in RWED ever.

***Please read this warning.***

Rue often lies outright about my positions--not just misconstrue, but states that I subscribe to platforms that are opposite of what I believe.

Please do not accept anything he says about my beliefs, ideas, or positions without dcuble-checking my own words in previous posts. If in doubt, you can always ask me. I'd be happy to clarify.

--------------------------
Never let the fear of striking out get in your way.
--Babe Ruth

GEEZER

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:30 PM

I'll answer a couple of these, based on what I've read of Libertarian theory, but I don't have the time or inclination to reverse all your misconceptions about libertarian economic theory. Do the reading, like I did. And I do still have some questions about the feasability of some of these ideas.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

How did the original owners get that property ?

Original owners got the property by being the first to claim and use it. The 'and use' part is essential. They may sell it to other people as they choose.

Quote:
What keeps multiple people from claiming that property?

Good question. Sort of moot in the present, since there isn't much free land to go around.

Quote:
Who adjudicates multiple claims?

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"

SERGEANTX

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:41 PM

Wow... what a fantastic thread. I'm kind of bummed that I was away from the computer yesterday. Oh well, not sure what I can add of substance, but I did have a couple of comments.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Signy, all you're doing is plopping anarchy down on top of our existing system and saying: see, it don't work!

This sort of sums up the whole discussion from my point of view.

How about a thought experiment? Let's look at it from exactly the opposite perspective (or vainly attempt to anyway). Imagine you're someone who grew up in an anarchist society and someone is explaining to you this novel, alien concept of "government". What kinds of questions might you ask?

Q: "So, you're saying that 'leaders' would make up rules and people would just follow them??? Haha... right..."

A: "Well, we'd have ways to enforce the laws. We'd have police officers with guns."

Q: "What, like one for each person?"

A: "Well, our proposal is more like 2 or 3 per thousand."

Q: "HAHA... yeah, that's funny. And all those people would just do what they're told? Dream on..."

I could go on, but you get the idea. The reason people behave themselves isn't because they are powerless to do otherwise. It's because of shared values and ingrained awareness that our system requires rule-following to work. There's no reason to believe an anarchist society would not, or could not, develop similar taboos and ideals that provide the foundation for anarchy to 'work', in the same way our societal values provide the foundation for government.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
My ability to alienate ... something or other. You get the drift, I'm sure. I have few talents, but apparently that's one of them.

I suspect this may be at the heart of rue's apprehensions about he would fare under anarchy...

Quote:
I see corporate power to be just as corrupting, evil and dangerous as government power. The idea that somehow corporations will be nice and not pollute, pay everyone fairly, and not have their own goon squads run the place - without some muscular social bounds placed on them - just isn't borne out by any slice of history.

I've been seeing it like this for some time now. The modern corporation is essentially a nation state without geographical identity. Its 'citizens' are its shareholders - not its employees, who are merely human 'resources'. Often they are client-states of a parent government, but they are still free to act as independent entities, as governments, especially when operating across traditional geographical borders.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The problem with corporations as an organizing principle for society is that they are created around gain and run without social feedback. They are in effect sociopaths. (And also, I might add, run on an unnatural model of human behavior that requires a total lack of trust and empathy.)

Government OTOH CAN be an expression of the will of the people - representing their interests as a group and the commons that all people depend on. So if you have corporations you have to have government to countervail - but you also have to make sure that it is representing your interests and hasn't been hijacked by business.

This is interesting. Why do you think government is more likely to enact the will of its citizens than a corporation?

Quote:
BTW - one way for government to function without the 'big stick' of violence is just for it to withhold its cooperation. To not recognize, enable or support a function or organization. You don't want that factory over there 'cause it'll pollute your water table ? ? You don't pipe it water - or build a sewer, or road, or a run the grid up to it. You don't protect its 'property' from theft, fire, vandalism. Nor do you recognize its right to an exclusive tenancy on the land. There are all sorts of ways to do that without a single instance of government 'force'.

This seems a much more realistic short-term goal for our own society. Th

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've been seeing it like this for some time now. The modern corporation is essentially a nation state without geographical identity. Its 'citizens' are its shareholders - not its employees, who are merely human 'resources'.

Exactly. Though I would argue that they do own a substantial amount of real estate. McDonalds owns enough land to constitute a small country.

The bottom line though, is that incorporation is a legal artifact that wouldn't exist if it weren't for government. In my view, corporatism and government are really two halves of the same coin of oppression.

That is why I think the Blue Sun/Alliance relationship is fascinating. I know I keep coming back to Firefly, but hey, if I can't do it here, where else can I keep bringing it up ad nauseum?

--------------------------
There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.
--Bertrand Russell

RAZZA

Monday, January 14, 2008 3:21 PM

CTS:

Firstoff, thanks for trying to explain anarchy to a serious skeptic. This has a been an interesting thread that has brought a reluctant poster but longtime lurker into the discussion.

I think that most folks hear the word anarchy and immediately think CHAOS!!! This tends to overshadow any further consideration of the concept in most cases. I'm one of these folks, and its been interesting to hear from a devout anarchist who isn't interested in simply tearing down everything we hold dear for the sake of tearing down. I think, though what you envision isn't really anarchy at all. You mentioned the "Right-Anarchists" and as I understand it, the concept that such folks simply want to take government out of the equation, but maintain all other social structures which that government helps to maintain. It's an interesting concept that has one fatal flaw IMHO. Most of those societal structures are in place because of the government. In effect, our societies banded together in a very Hobbesian way, made a social contract to stick together, formed a government, and live together in peace for the most part. Your notions, at least to me, simply seem to be a renegotiation of that social contract with a different government. Okay, that government you envision looks nothing like our current system, but I would argue that there are some very government like activities inherent in your descriptions of a "right-anarchist" society.

To quote from some previous posts:

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch:
Reality is you as the victim of the first individual or group better armed or just more ruthless than you are.

Reality is that when you are armed and not a sitting duck, easy victim, the gangs move on to easier targets. To be sure, one has to have a certain amount of "ruthlessness" as you call it, a lack of hesitation to kill in self-defense to take on one's own security responsibilities. But it is not any more "ruthless" than whoever were to take on those security responsibilities for you (e.g. police or military).

BTW, just because people want freedom doesn't mean they are individually isolated and can't "gang up" to defend their communities from marauders.

So, in the right-anarchist society you envision, its okay that certain communities are "sitting ducks" at the mercy of wandering bands of ruthless murauders as long as your community isn't effected. That sounds a great deal like the CHAOS most folks equate anarchy with. Not sure how you are going to convince the vast majority of citizenry to give up their current relative state of security in favor of being a "sitting duck", but that's just one flaw I see.

Another is the concept that folks would "gang-up" to defend themselves. Isn't that a very government like concept? The entire reason people get together and form governments is because they recognize that they have common interests that could be better served by "ganging-up" as you call it. Once a group of folks decide to "gang-up" against marauders its only one more step to "gang-up" to make sure their fields are irrigated, crops are harvested, bullets are made, defensive works built, and a host of other group self interests. Low and behold before you know it, you've got a government!

What am I missing or are you envisioning only occasional "ganging-up" to take care of common community problems, and how is that not a form of government?

-----------------
Yet Another Stupid Blog --> www.razzarant.net

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

HERO

Monday, January 14, 2008 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Everyone would have to dabble in all kinds of civic minded avocations--volunteer this, volunteer that--anarchy is not a system for people who want to be left alone to wallow in privileged ignorance--such folks would not fare too well.

They better be willing to volunteer to pick up my garbage...cause otherwise I'm sticking it on your lawn...your lawn...he'll that's actually my garbage dump. ANARCHY!

H

SIGNYM

Monday, January 14, 2008 4:05 PM

Obviously I'm going to have to delve into this, but I have an essential problem with the notion of Libertarianism/ Anarchy, which is that power inevitably concentrates. It doesn't matter whether that power is based on land, money, guns, or religion... knocking everyone down to equal status is NOT going to guarantee that it will remain so unless you take specific steps to keep power from re-concentrating. It's the Burt story all over again. And that in itself needs coordinated action 'cause MOST folks aren't about to confront the sociopath individually. That's why I think it's so necessary to look at societies that didn't have apparent means of enforcement, like the Harrapans or the Aegeans, to see how they got there.

The FF's mistake was thinking that power rested in the land, guns, laws, and religion. They did their best to distribute those powers and make them answerable to the people, or to ban them from government outright (religion). They depended on the notion of grabbing land from the natives to provide a "floor" below which nobody else would sink (as long as they worked hard) but didn't have an answer for when the land rush ended, and most people got wrapped up in an system in which the "means of production" was mostly owned by somebody else. In the libertarian construct it seems that danger still exists that entities will form which will outgun everyone else.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 4:15 PM

Quote:
It's an interesting concept that has one fatal flaw IMHO. Most of those societal structures are in place because of the government.

True. Most of Europe's infrastructure are in place because of monarchy (in fact, the form of govt supported by Hobbes). It doesn't mean they can't change to a democracy now. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Now, can my way to skin a cat work? We won't know until we try.

Quote:
So, in the right-anarchist society you envision, its okay that certain communities are "sitting ducks" at the mercy of wandering bands of ruthless murauders as long as your community isn't effected.

Oh, no, it's never okay. I was simply explaining that robbers aren't soldiers. They aren't looking for a fight--they are looking for an easy score. So if you're armed, they'll look elsewhere. But if *everyone* is armed, they have to look for another way to make money that doesn't involve a high risk of death. Cause believe it or not, robbers, like everyone else, want to live. Predators prey on the weakest victims, but if everyone is strong enough to put up a good fight, they have to start eating vegetables.

Quote:
Another is the concept that folks would "gang-up" to defend themselves. Isn't that a very government like concept?

No, that isn't government. That could be construed to be a military, which is not the same thing as government. There is no monopoly of force where one entity has all the guns, and no one else has any. When people gang up, they keep all their own guns--no one has a monopoly. The alliance does not serve the function of government, legislating what each person could or could not do under threat of force--because the alliance itself does not have force of its own to make threats with.

Another way to think of it is to realize that we have a semblance of global anarchism. That is, we do not have a global government that has a monopoly of all global forces. Each sovereign state has and keeps its own weapons. Sometimes, some states gang up against others, as the Axis did in WWII. Defending states then gang up against the invading gang. The alliance was not a superimposing government that could boss the allied states, since it had no force of its own.

Cooperation is not the same thing as government. Remember, the essence of government is to hold all or most of the available guns, point those guns at you, and tell you what you are and are not allowed to do.

--------------------------
In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.
-- Mark Twain

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 5:01 PM

Quote:
... which is that power inevitably concentrates. .. knocking everyone down to equal status is NOT going to guarantee that it will remain so unless you take specific steps to keep power from re-concentrating.

First, no one supports knocking people down to equal status except for the left-anarchists (communists), who are not represented on this board.

Second, power is not the same thing as force. It is a subtle, but important, distinction, I believe. One can have a lot of power and influence without pointing guns at folks and forcing them to do what one wants.

But yes, I agree that measures to keep power from concentrating are needed. I think at best, one can only slow down this process, not stop it entirely.

What SergeantX posted was right on the money. For anarchism to work, there has to be a different mindset, a different set of expectations and worldviews. There are different assumptions, mores, and norms, all of which "govern" collective behavior more than all the written laws put together. I believe this culture of individual sovereignty is our best hope for keeping the powers from concentrating too much too fast. Put that together with a citizenry that is armed and trained to use arms, power becomes less likely to concentrate.

Quote:
In the libertarian construct it seems that danger still exists that entities will form which will outgun everyone else.

Right now, corporations only "outgun" everyone else because they are in cahoots with the monopoly of guns. Take that monopoly away, arm the citizenry, and there may be a completely different picture of who is outgunning who.

--------------------------
I will not pretend that if I had to choose between communism and Nazism I would choose communism.
-Sir Winston Churchill

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

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 9:14 PM

So it comes down to a hissy fit because you don't get to do whatever it is you want to do.

The reason the health department is interested in your lemonade stand is that they want to ensure that it's safe to drink. Now I'm sure in your world the recourse if little Johnny gets sick after drinking your lemonade is that their pa straps on his piece and shoots you (or something.) Most people though prefer prevention.

The reason they zone your area as residential is because your neighbours expect to be able to enjoy their property without interference from you. If you can turn your place into a lemonade stand why can't your neighbour do the same and make his place into a drive through McDonalds and just ignore the fact that the noise and pollution mean you cant enjoy your place? But then if he does that in your world I'm sure you would just shoot him.

No I haven't been to a failed state, however I have met and spoke with people that used to live in a few and I'm sorry their version carries a little more weight with me than that of a visiting western business man. The quote is that to know someone spend day in their shoes not drive past them in a car between your regional office and the local Hilton International.

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

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.

Why? I mean these guys don't ring you up and tell you they are coming, they will hit you when their risk is minimal. All it means is that they will tend to use more force in the same situation because they won't want to risk that you'd be able to respond. In general these people don't do this stuff because they have no options they do it because they prefer the lifestyle.

I doubt you could make anything high enough risk that nobody would try it. People rob banks and armoured cars where they KNOW that there will be armed guards, so there are obviously people out there that are not risk averse. What you are saying is that you would adjust the risk/reward equation such that in some instances it wouldn't be worth the risk to do the crime. I say that people will just adjust their schemes. When banks in Europe started becoming too tough to rob people started abducting bank manager's families then forcing the manager to rob his bank. If I want to rob your house I can do it without you firing a shot. Do YOU know where your children are every moment? If I wanted your cooperation *I* would know.

Quote:

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.

What about organised crime? Al Q and organised crime have similar structures. Large urban street gangs have similar structures. Governments are not the only ones with "soldiers" organised gangs have them too.

Quote:

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.

Let's look at that.

Who are the private police? Who licences them? Who ensures that the "confession" they obtained wasn't beaten out of someone? Who ensures that any gun incident is investigated. What authority do they have to extradite a suspect from another state? Do they have to show some authority figure a warrent? Who is that figure. If there is none can they snatch people from teh streets? If his heavily armed friends see these guy's muscling in and a firefight ensues who pays the compensation/medical costs of the civilians caught in the crossfire?

What evidence do they have to have to take a case? Is it enough that the guy writing the check says the guy is guilty? Does this mean that poor people, the ones that can't afford their own Pinkertons get a lesser level of justice?

I remember a case where a guy would pick up girls, torture them and then dump the bodies hundreds of miles away where IF they were found they would be listed as Jane Does. The guy was only caught because a policeman in one community spend time effort (and tax payer's money) finding him. In your scheme if a body is found and it isn't "one of yours" do you just give it a Christian burial and forget about it? After all nobody will pay a pinkerton to track the guy down and there would be no "kin" to swear blood vengeance.

What a great world to be a serial killer.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 14, 2008 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So it comes down to a hissy fit because you don't get to do whatever it is you want to do.

First of all, hissy fit? Huh? Secondly, you asked what I would use my freedom for. I answered. That is what freedom is, getting to do what you want to do.

Third, you don't need to explain the why we have laws. My disagreement with the laws does not stem from not understanding why they are there.

Quote:
I'm sorry their version carries a little more weight with me than that of a visiting western business man. The quote is that to know someone spend day in their shoes not drive past them in a car between your regional office and the local Hilton International.

Whoa. That is a lot of assumptions. What makes you think he is a western business man who drives past people between regional offices and the local Hilton International?

My husband loves Africa, esp eastern and central Africa because people there value freedom. (They don't make excuses for whatever crappy govt they have. ) He uses local transportation, stays at local lodging, and eats local food when he is there, and he stays for months at a time. He speaks the local languages. Some people save for a house, or car, or cruise. He saves for trips to Africa, and has done so since his teenage years. He's climbed Mt Kilamanjaro, hung out with the Masai, walked through jungles and the deserts. In fact, he was there at the very beginning of the Rwandan genocide. His best friend of over 20 years is African (DRCongo). Because he considers us family, we actually have family there. To tell the truth, we're slowly moving towards emigrating there eventually.

But I'm not saying this to convince you to believe my husband. You can believe whatever you want, of course. This is just where we're coming from.

--------------------------
If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years.
--Bertrand Russell

CITIZEN

Monday, January 14, 2008 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The guy who hit you has zero assets so you can forget about suing.

Since theres no government, and therefore no courts, how on Earth would you sue him anyway?

All the replacements for government here seem to be putting a government in place, but calling it something else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FLETCH2

Monday, January 14, 2008 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The guy who hit you has zero assets so you can forget about suing.
Since theres no government, and therefore no courts, how on Earth would you sue him anyway?

All the replacements for government here seem to be putting a government in place, but calling it something else.

Which is kind of the point. One of the primary functions of governments is the overseeing and enforcement of contracts. Note that in the "Right-Anarchist" world all other structures are untouched and contracts are still made. Which raises the question as to who arbitrates them and who enforces them. Now CTS will probably say that if you're rich enough and powerful enough you can buy your own way even with the law (ie government) overseeing the transaction. Even IF we accept this to be universally true (ie the little guy NEVER gets an even break) then that's just an indication that the system is broken and needs reform because the intention of the law is to be a neutral and equitable arbiter of disputes. Removing the law and especially enforcement of the law will still favor the powerful because as CTS says herself the powerful can always hire renta-cops to ensure enforcement where as the little guy can't. It won't make things any fairer for contracts.

I may not hang out with the Massi but I have travelled a bit, lived in places with really stupid rules (from my viewpoint) that seem to just be some officials chance at a power trip. That doesn't mean that I view all laws in that society to be equally dubious nor does it mean that one stupid law makes me willing to decide the whole idea is a waste of time.

Which is not to say that what CTS (I think) is talking about is completely unheard of. In Arab and eastern cultures business relationships are made on a personal level, you shake hands on it and the deal is done, personal honour ensures that things are adhered to.... in theory.

The problem comes if one party is not satisfied because then "it's not business, it's personal." I once knew a Pakistani guy in London who came from the northern tribal region. His uncle has had a falling out over a dowry that effectively put two families into a state of war. Some guy from the other family was killed and the guy I knew ended up skipping the country because he was tipped off he was targeted in a revenge killing.

In the west we would sue, depending on the outcome assets may be seized and in most cases no bloodshed would ensue.

Anyway....

FREDGIBLET

Monday, January 14, 2008 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In Arab and eastern cultures business relationships are made on a personal level, you shake hands on it and the deal is done, personal honour ensures that things are adhered to.... in theory.

From what I understand the diamond business is much the same, I heard a story about someone who ripped of a few million dollars worth of diamonds by playing off of that.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:34 AM

I thought I was a Libertarian until I read this thread. Seems like I'm a big government conservative compared to many here. I think the Federal Government's only function should be national defense and local governments only function should be law enforcement. I also believe that to minimise the number of laws, all new laws should have to be approved by a 75% or more super majority vote of the governing body. Requiring a super majority might slow down the constant stream of new laws that remove one more decision from me and transfers it to the government. Why do we need all these stupid laws. Instead of having a jaywalking law why not just remove liability for drivers who run down pedestrians outside of cross walks. Or just fine the pedestrians estate for improper placement of a speed bump. There are a lot of problems that just take care of themselves without government intervention.

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:30 AM

Interesting. I started this thread to ask the libertarian and anarchist folks a couple of questions I'd come up with based on my recent reading. What I got was mostly the non-anarchist and non-libertarian folks coming up with extreme worst-case scenarios that distort or ignore most of the liberterian/anarchist philosophy I've read so far. Makes me wonder what's got them so scared of people being souvreign individuals. Do they think that everyone but them is not fit to make their own decisions?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I thought I was a Libertarian until I read this thread. Seems like I'm a big government conservative compared to many here.

This thread has been mostly about anarchism, not libertarianism. Libertarians want government, just not a lot of it.

--------------------------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
--- Arthur Bloch

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Interesting. I started this thread to ask the libertarian and anarchist folks a couple of questions I'd come up with based on my recent reading. What I got was mostly the non-anarchist and non-libertarian folks coming up with extreme worst-case scenarios that distort or ignore most of the liberterian/anarchist philosophy I've read so far. Makes me wonder what's got them so scared of people being souvreign individuals. Do they think that everyone but them is not fit to make their own decisions?

Seconded.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Interesting. I started this thread to ask the libertarian and anarchist folks a couple of questions I'd come up with based on my recent reading. What I got was mostly the non-anarchist and non-libertarian folks coming up with extreme worst-case scenarios that distort or ignore most of the liberterian/anarchist philosophy I've read so far. Makes me wonder what's got them so scared of people being souvreign individuals. Do they think that everyone but them is not fit to make their own decisions?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Worse case scenarios that happen all the time. Crimes are committed that require investigation, fugitives do run across state boarders, people do rob places despite the fact that there are armed guards. The idea that you can do away with professional law enforcement as long as everyone packs heat is a gun nut pipe-dream. The idea that in the absence of government and with no other controls the power vacuum won't be filled by someone be it the local tyranny of a street gang or the national one of some dictatorship is naive.

Reading CTS's little missive I found myself humming John Lennon's "Imagine" because it's the same kind of wishful thinking that unfortunately falls foul of the weakness of human nature. Except I like John Lennon's version better, not only does his dream not involve me strapping on a "piece" every morning but the tune is catchier.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Do they think that everyone but them is not fit to make their own decisions?

It's the fundamental premise of modern political theory.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:14 PM

I just think the mental disconnect is too wide to bridge here, to begin with, and a hefty dose of fear of the unknown and "you can't survive without us" conditioning from the status quo made this discussion as it stands unviable from the start.

Case in point, this article.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/fontana/fontana17.html
See who nods and smiles.
See who screams in horror.

The chasm between those two thought processes is wider than any bridge I can build, alas.

On the other hand, anyone who has ever, when trying to explain the adult world to a child been told to their very face by same - "That's ridiculous!" knows where that gap can be bridged, and where I work at bridging it, and why.

And I leave one final question to nibble at the edges of folks consciousness for a while.

If the status quo is so much better than what could be - why is everyone so damn miserable ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:19 PM

Frem,

You're actually an anarchist, not some wussy anarcho-libertarian like me. Double check for me--did I say something wrong, misrepresent anarchism in some way? Maybe I misconceptualized some aspect of anarchism, self-defense, crime, whatever? Anyway, correct me if I was. Maybe I didn't do an adequate job explaining it all.

I think at the heart of it, it is the view of human nature that separates anarchists from government-needin' folk. I believe most people will mind their own businesses if they weren't placed in an artificial, rationalized position of power over others. What I find in arguments that oppose anarchism is a general fear of human nature; the exception is those few humans they choose to vote for.

I loved that article you sent. It hits home, because I have 3 kids that I want to raise to never learn to obey. Yet, of course, I find myself getting mad that they don't obey *me*--haha. Power is infinitely seductive.

Fletch, I talked to my husband last night about this thread. He said when he was in Rwanda at the beginning of the genocide in 1994 (after the president was assassinated), he escaped the country with the help of black marketeers. They had no guns to sell for $100 or for any price. Weapons would have been handy at that time, but there were none to be had. He hasn't seen that situation anywhere in his travels in Africa, where guns were available for anywhere near $100. That doesn't mean your friends were wrong in their part of the world, but it is certainly not true in the parts where my husband's been (mostly east and central Africa).

--------------------------
What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer.
--Bertrand Russell

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The idea that you can do away with professional law enforcement as long as everyone packs heat is a gun nut pipe-dream.

Who says you do away with professional law enforcement? Libertarian theory just says it'd be PRIVATE professional law enforcement. Of course, I'm still looking for examples of how that works at the day to day level, but there are already private security companies that work nationwide, Brinks comes to mind.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:30 PM

While Anarchy and Libertarianism are often mentioned simultaneously, they do seem to be worlds apart. There is probably a smaller gap between Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats then there is between Anarchists and Libertarians, and I’ve never thought of them as being the same thing, so it’s puzzled me from the beginning of this thread that they would be used almost interchangeably.

However, what I’m seeing here is not a discussion on Libertarianism, but Anarchy. Libertarianism, from what I understand, don’t believe in no government, just minimal government. In a lot ways the Libertarians are the old laissez-faire Republicans. But Anarchy is an extremist philosophy that has never produced a livable society. On the large scale, it lapses into dueling warlords, common in failed states, or totalitarianism, such the Marxist regimes. Given human nature it is simply not a workable solution. And although CTS should be commended for her efforts in presenting the tenants of Anarchy as she understands them, there has been nothing presented here that would suggest to me that Anarchy is any kind of stable situation.

So it seems these terms have got to be decouple. There are lot of people on this board, I suspect, including myself, who could find a lot of common ground with Libertarians. In fact, I’m frequently accused of being one, but I don't think I can find any common ground with Anarchist.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Libertarian theory just says it'd be PRIVATE professional law enforcement.

Actually, as I understand it, libertarian theory generally supports law enforcement as one of the few legitimate functions of government. Libertarians in America generally support the full extent and power of government granted by the Constitution.

"Anarcho-libertarians" are folks who dream of anarchy, but are willing to compromise and settle for minimal government. That means law enforcement, military and courts. Personally, I'd throw in public roads as well. I fall into this category, so am not a true-blue anarchist. However, I have studied anarchism for many years, so I don't mind opining about it.

Anarchists, of course, don't want any type of government at all.

I think it is important to make these distinctions so that people don't mistake the Libertarian Party as some sort of platform that wants to do away with public roads and police forces.

--------------------------
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes what'er it touches; and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanized automaton.
--Percy Bysshe Shelley, Queen Mab

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:37 PM

CTS ?

That's the beauty of Anarchy, it's as individual as people, so forgive me a bit if I chuckled at you trying to explain it to them - you got the gist of it, sure, but HOW do you explain "Green" to a person with no eyes ?

S'why I mostly don't bother, and if I explained it, or expressed it, it would be as different than your expression of it as two snowflakes in a blizzard, the devil isn't in the details, it's in the concept.

And Retta's a dollbaby, some more of her work here.
She lives up here nearby, just so you know - MI seems to have quite a few of us...
http://www.strike-the-root.com/archive/fontana.html

The other occasional author you'd get a bang out of is Underground Panther in the Sky, but she's gone DEEP underground now... still, you might find bits and pieces of her work lingering...

Geeze makes a good point, and one I am fond of coming at sideways as well.

If police weren't a Government sponsored and protected monopoly, they might actually have some incentive, and eventually.. actual ABILITY, to DO THEIR JOB, gee, what a surprise that would be, actually doing the job they were paid to, instead of exploiting and abusing the folks being forced by Government to write their paycheck, hmmm.

"But Anarchy is an extremist philosophy that has never produced a livable society. On the large scale, it lapses into dueling warlords, common in failed states, or totalitarianism, such the Marxist regimes. Given human nature it is simply not a workable solution."

I call BS - no Anarchist collective has ever been allowed to survive long enough by the Governments fearful of their peons wising up, TO make that statement one way or the other, and the places you are referring to, are the deterius OF Government, the eventual direct result of such a thing, when it finally implodes under the weight of it's own abuses and extortions.

You are taking the end result of Government and blaming Anarchy for it, and you expect anyone to buy that line of tripe ?

All you have to sell me is a false front over the gibbering fear that perhaps some day you might have to take some damn responsibility for your own life and make your own decisions in an environment that isn't FDA approved, USDA inspected, FBI controlled "Safe" without big daddy government there to order your life for you and protect you, despite the fact that said so-called safety is an illusion at best when the primary threat to your life, property and rights is in fact agents of that self-same Government you think is protecting you.

Does it really fucking matter to the dead guy whether the thug who murdered him had a badge or a rap sheet ?

I've bit my tongue a while here, but you've been begging for that mockery since the start.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:52 PM

Oh yeah, almost forgot this bit...

One thing I do feel, is that mankind isn't really.. "ready" for it, we're not grown up enough, you see.

Physically, we're evolved, opposable thumbs, nice large brains with solid cases...

Intellectually, we're getting there, and quickly, but some days that worries me cause...

Emotionally and Socially, we're stunted, crippled, primitive... have bigger club, take your stuff, and all the bullshit that goes with it, and our current system actively opposes and discourages any maturity and evolution on that front, leaving us Socio-Emotive imbeciles incapable of functioning WITHOUT those structures to cling to.

That's one reason I am hostile to most religion, although religion itself is far less to blame than Government and those who use and abuse it's power knowing that once mankind evolves enough socially and emotionally, finishes growing up, the structures that give them such power over others, in fact they themselves, as primitive throwbacks... will be cast aside.

But no, that day ain't here yet, I do not believe it is - that don't stop me from layin the groundwork though, the foundations upon which future generations can build, and if they're built on the wreckage of the established order and it's cronies, so much the better, at least they'll be of SOME use.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:56 PM

Hello,

I am prepared to advocate "The Least Amount of Government We Can Get Away With" which I must admit is quite a lot more than most Libertarians think.

"Anarchy" existed. In our own history, in the Wild West, there were areas of minimal government controls and there were private interests who became powerful enough to ignore laws and take what they wanted.

In popular Western dramas, a lone hero or small group rides into town, destroys the vast army that the local land baron/rancher/mine owner/railroad baron controls. They free the people and ride on.

In real life, such a scenario would be difficult and rare. In real life, the powerful land owner/business owner really does control the town and the fate of the people in it. No one is powerful enough to stop them. Unions might form, and then the bad guys call the Pinkertons, and there's a big fight where lots of people die.

And in our world, it gets negative media attention and the government steps in (hopefully.)

But in the Anarchy, there is no one to step in, and the baron, if powerful enough, is unstoppable.

A true Anarchy only works, as far as I can see, in a small village environment where no one is richer or more powerful than anyone else. Once someone starts a successful business venture, they begin to outstrip the power of their neighbors, and only their own conscience can stop them from becoming a de-facto totalitarian state.

WHAT DO I BELIEVE IN? I DIFFER FROM ANARCHISTS.

I believe in a Police Force whose job it is to protect everyone's freedoms.

I believe in a Military whose job it is to protect us from other governments.

I believe in a court system with a minimal law-set whose job it is to enforce everyone's freedoms.

(HERE I DIFFER FROM MOST LIBERTARIAN FOLKS)

I believe in a school regulatory system which defines minimum standards of education that all schools are certified against. (I believe that we'll become a nation of morons if we ferret out education to the lowest-bidder private business owner whose concern is the bottom line and not necessarily educating children. With a certification board, you'll know if your kids are attending a school that hasn't met minimum standards.)

I believe in a medical regulatory system that certifies medical facilities in a similar fashion.

I believe in a Public Works department that employs people for the construction and maintenance of 'common' resources like roads, water supply, garbage, etc.)

I believe most of this can be funded with a nominal flat sales tax fixed in the low percentiles by constitutional amendment.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE