Hi everybody, I made a previous thread on pretty much the smae subject, but I only got 1 reply, so I think it may not have been very clear.
Suppose a part or several parts of the world become anarchic for a period of time and assume that foreign or neihgbouring states by some miracle do not interfere or try to occupy these territories.
Do you think people living in these areas would try to reform states? Moreover, do you think the local populations would try to support these developments?
Also, is anarchy all one would require for something like Private Defense Agencies to form in these areas? Or do you feel it is far more likely Mafia and protection rackets would run rampant?
Does the question of what happens depend on other factors? For example, the current system survives despite its economic flaws and inveitable bankruptcy because people believe wholeheartedly in the ideology of the state and this is what is propogated through the education system.
Could the formation of anarchic orders that are not completely uncivillised require the propogation of similiar degrees of education and understanding of Economics, especially regarding the provision of security and justice?
If so, should this become an immediate goal of all anarchocapitalists, to do their part, as much as possible to inform the public of this truth and these logical arguments with which it is reached, so that when the time comes and the western welfare states do absolutely collapse, people at least have a chance to prevent an utter dark age emerging on the other end?
Look forward to your answers.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
The first thing that comes to my mind is how the population would support itself, assuming that the area is supported by an import/export economy. Assuming the infrastructure of the area isn't kept up, imports couldn't enter the area and people would ultimately starve.
PDA's would run rampant, as the desperate people seek for some kind of protection. Any mafia leader could enter the area, with imported weapons, and even monopolize the area's defense.
With such a low standard of living, the people would look for any kind of stable food/shelter. Many would leave into the borders of stable countries, or companies from foreign companies would come in and exploit their desperation for easy labor.
tl;dr: not a good situation. Either the entire world goes anarchy or the state remains but possesses a fully free market.
TelfordUS: The first thing that comes to my mind is how the population would support itself, assuming that the area is supported by an import/export economy. Assuming the infrastructure of the area isn't kept up, imports couldn't enter the area and people would ultimately starve. PDA's would run rampant, as the desperate people seek for some kind of protection. Any mafia leader could enter the area, with imported weapons, and even monopolize the area's defense. With such a low standard of living, the people would look for any kind of stable food/shelter. Many would leave into the borders of stable countries, or companies from foreign companies would come in and exploit their desperation for easy labor.
1. Why wouldn't infrastructure not be kept up?
2. Why would "PDAs run rampant"?
3. Why would people be desperate for protection?
4. Why would mafia enter an area? How could they monopolize defense?
5. Why would the standard of living be low?
6. How would foreign companies exploit labour?
abskebabs:Also, is anarchy all one would require for something like Private Defense Agencies to form in these areas?
Sure. You + baseball bat = PDA.
abskebabs:Or do you feel it is far more likely Mafia and protection rackets would run rampant?
Mafia only thrives by buying off the cops and providing superior service (and pricing) compared to other groups.
As far as the rest, too long, too much conjecture required. No one knows what anarchy will look like, if they did, they would be capable of planning an economy, and we already know that is not possible.
liberty student: 1. Why wouldn't infrastructure not be kept up? 2. Why would "PDAs run rampant"? 3. Why would people be desperate for protection? 4. Why would mafia enter an area? How could they monopolize defense? 5. Why would the standard of living be low? 6. How would foreign companies exploit labour?
lol What is this, a quiz?
1: Telephone poles collapse, roads/bridges damaged/eroded, airports abandoned etc. Just big business things that are no longer maintained by big business.
2: Lawlessness + Desperate people + Weapon imports = powder keg for protection exploitation
3: People are scared by being vulnerable to attack. Protection, at first, would sell like hot cakes.
4: They offer protection/defense, which would be in an exponentially high demand. Mafia lords could either fight for power in certain areas or even monopolize power over all other defense organizations.
5: Loss of government AND a big business from a large population like an entire country will cause some kind of uproar, crime at the VERY least. That's sure to lower the standard of living by at least a little, no?
6: Workers, without any local companies to depend on, may look beyond the borders for stable companies with stable wages and stable benefits. A man working minimum wage with health insurance in a country of wageless and uninsured people would be "ahead" socially.
TelfordUS:Telephone poles collapse, roads/bridges damaged/eroded, airports abandoned etc. Just big business things that are no longer maintained by big business.
Why wouldn't private individuals homestead and maintain this infrastructure for profit?
TelfordUS:Lawlessness + Desperate people + Weapon imports = powder keg for protection exploitation
Why would there be lawlessness?
TelfordUS:People are scared by being vulnerable to attack.
If you have ever lived in rural areas, people are not scared of there not being cops everywhere.
TelfordUS:Loss of government AND a big business from a large population like an entire country will cause some kind of uproar, crime at the VERY least. That's sure to lower the standard of living by at least a little, no?
So economic freedom and no taxation or regulation wouldn't spur development and production?
TelfordUS:Workers, without any local companies to depend on, may look beyond the borders for stable companies with stable wages and stable benefits. A man working minimum wage with health insurance in a country of wageless and uninsured people would be "ahead" socially.
Sure, there may be some arbitrage, but health insurance is a farce. In most cases, it is just a pre-payment plan, not legitimate major medical. Unregulated areas are going to have more, and cheaper treatment options.
TelfordUS:lol What is this, a quiz?
No, your responses lead me to believe you don't actually believe freedom can work. That markets are more dangerous than central planning.
liberty student:No, your responses lead me to believe you don't actually believe freedom can work. That markets are more dangerous than central planning.
I'm really tired of the classical anarcho-capitalist ad hominem that anyone who supports a state does not believe freedom can work.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
TelfordUS: liberty student: 1. Why wouldn't infrastructure not be kept up? 2. Why would "PDAs run rampant"? 3. Why would people be desperate for protection? 4. Why would mafia enter an area? How could they monopolize defense? 5. Why would the standard of living be low? 6. How would foreign companies exploit labour? lol What is this, a quiz? 1: Telephone poles collapse, roads/bridges damaged/eroded, airports abandoned etc. Just big business things that are no longer maintained by big business. 2: Lawlessness + Desperate people + Weapon imports = powder keg for protection exploitation 3: People are scared by being vulnerable to attack. Protection, at first, would sell like hot cakes. 4: They offer protection/defense, which would be in an exponentially high demand. Mafia lords could either fight for power in certain areas or even monopolize power over all other defense organizations. 5: Loss of government AND a big business from a large population like an entire country will cause some kind of uproar, crime at the VERY least. That's sure to lower the standard of living by at least a little, no? 6: Workers, without any local companies to depend on, may look beyond the borders for stable companies with stable wages and stable benefits. A man working minimum wage with health insurance in a country of wageless and uninsured people would be "ahead" socially.
1. Why do you assume big business will leave when government does? Business will remain, so long as there is profit to be made. As long as there are people in this anarchic area with unsatisfied wants, business will remain.
2. Lol. Simply stating that there will be 'lawlessness', 'desperate people' and 'weapon imports' and that these three magically appearing factors will magically lead to chaos isnt good enough, I'm afraid. Try backing up statements with substance as opposed to vague, unsupported scary sounding nonsense.
3. First, I thought all business had left? Second, why isnt a gun and the knowledge of how to use it enough? Third, assuming it does, so what? Why is the purchase of protection a bad thing?
4. Your theory goes as follows:
A) There will be competition for protection, but the only competitors will be 'mafia lords' (whatever the heck that means) for some reason apparently only known to you.
B) This competition will then bring a monopoly of evil mafia types.
Perhaps you ought to rethink your ideas.
5. Again, why the loss of big business? And if you assume that the loss of a coercive monopoly is a bad thing, why are you bitching about these mafia lords?
6. Because know that all local business would immediately explode, upon loss of government.
laminustacitus: liberty student:No, your responses lead me to believe you don't actually believe freedom can work. That markets are more dangerous than central planning. I'm really tired of the classical anarcho-capitalist ad hominem that anyone who supports a state does not believe freedom can work.
Yeah, that's crazy.
Believing that people who advocate a system which must limit individual freedom to some degree, are not believers in 100% freedom.
laminustacitus:I'm really tired
Take a nap. You've been working hard.
abskebabs:Do you think people living in these areas would try to reform states?
No.
Yes.
A people that refuses to pay taxes to government would refuse to pay taxes to the Mafia.
abskebabs:Could the formation of anarchic orders that are not completely uncivillised require the propogation of similiar degrees of education and understanding of Economics, especially regarding the provision of security and justice?
abskebabs:If so, should this become an immediate goal of all anarchocapitalists, to do their part, as much as possible to inform the public of this truth and these logical arguments with which it is reached, so that when the time comes and the western welfare states do absolutely collapse, people at least have a chance to prevent an utter dark age emerging on the other end?
The dark ages was not about people living free. It was about people living under tyranny.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
First of all, it is not an ad-hominem. Second of all, someone who supports the state by definition does not believe freedom can work.
Spideynw: laminustacitus: liberty student:No, your responses lead me to believe you don't actually believe freedom can work. That markets are more dangerous than central planning. I'm really tired of the classical anarcho-capitalist ad hominem that anyone who supports a state does not believe freedom can work. First of all, it is not an ad-hominem.
First of all, it is not an ad-hominem.
Call it whatever you want, its still tiring.
Spideynw:Second of all, someone who supports the state by definition does not believe freedom can work.
You redefine "freedom" to suit your ideology; all ideas of freedom have parameters, even the anarcho-capitalist one. I can also play the redefining game: anarcho-capitalism does not believe in freedom because it denies me the capability of killing as I so desire!
'Course, anarchy is about voluntary limitations and cooperation. That's the difference.
As for anarchy "breaking out" (like some sort of rash ^_^) if it was the result of an educated movement to abolish the government (ideally peacefully, anyway) then I don't see why it would immediately fall to pieces. Hell, the anarchists in Spain were dealing with a largely illiterate population and managed to self-organize at least for a time.
Ska is lame and so am I.
laminustacitus: Spideynw: laminustacitus: liberty student:No, your responses lead me to believe you don't actually believe freedom can work. That markets are more dangerous than central planning. I'm really tired of the classical anarcho-capitalist ad hominem that anyone who supports a state does not believe freedom can work. First of all, it is not an ad-hominem. Call it whatever you want, its still tiring. Spideynw:Second of all, someone who supports the state by definition does not believe freedom can work. You redefine "freedom" to suit your ideology; all ideas of freedom have parameters, even the anarcho-capitalist one. I can also play the redefining game: anarcho-capitalism does not believe in freedom because it denies me the capability of killing as I so desire!
By killing someone, you restrict their freedom to life.
Tell me, who's freedom am I restricting if I want to start up a protection company?
laminustacitus:anarcho-capitalism does not believe in freedom because it denies me the capability of killing as I so desire!
It doesn't deny you the capability. It merely reflects the understanding that someone who will aggress, is a target for aggression in return.
Besides Lam, you're clever enough to know that positivism is untenable and unsustainable in the long run.
Skanarchist:'Course, anarchy is about voluntary limitations and cooperation. That's the difference.
Anarchy is just about not having a state, it does not say anything about the justice of "voluntary limitations and cooperation".
Skanarchist:As for anarchy "breaking out" (like some sort of rash ^_^) if it was the result of an educated movement to abolish the government (ideally peacefully, anyway) then I don't see why it would immediately fall to pieces. Hell, the anarchists in Spain were dealing with a largely illiterate population and managed to self-organize at least for a time.
The Spanish anarchists should be absolutely no one's role-model.
liberty student: laminustacitus:anarcho-capitalism does not believe in freedom because it denies me the capability of killing as I so desire! It doesn't deny you the capability. It merely reflects the understanding that someone who will aggress, is a target for aggression in return.
The same thing can be said of everything the state does. It does not deny one the capability of doing something in just the same fashion.
liberty student:Besides Lam, you're clever enough to know that positivism is untenable and unsustainable in the long run.
What positivism do you refer to? Are either Hayek, or Mises positivists by your definition?
Seph: By killing someone, you restrict their freedom to life. Tell me, who's freedom am I restricting if I want to start up a protection company?
The freedom of the other person to kill you without restraints. In addition, your belief that someone has the freedom to life is nothing other than a metaphysical judgment of value.
laminustacitus:Anarchy is just about not having a state, it does not say anything about the justice of "voluntary limitations and cooperation".
Why not? The latter is the only way the former will work.
laminustacitus:The Spanish anarchists should be absolutely no one's role-model.
I'm actually starting to read Orwell's Homage To Catalonia so maybe we'll see. From what else I've read they were probably preferable to the alternatives present in Spain at the time.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Skanarchist: laminustacitus:Anarchy is just about not having a state, it does not say anything about the justice of "voluntary limitations and cooperation". Why not? The latter is the only way the former will work.
Why not? The reason is that you are redefining a term already present in the english language, its a choice to preserve the hermeneutics of english.
Skanarchist: laminustacitus:The Spanish anarchists should be absolutely no one's role-model. I'm actually starting to read Orwell's Homage To Catalonia so maybe we'll see. From what else I've read they were probably preferable to the alternatives present in Spain at the time.
Absolutely not, they were murderous thugs even worse than Franco's nationalists.
Are either Hayek, or Mises positivists by your definition?
lam:Absolutely not, they were murderous thugs even worse than Franco's nationalists.
laminustacitus:The freedom of the other person to kill you without restraints. In addition, your belief that someone has the freedom to life is nothing other than a metaphysical judgment of value.
Do you believe in the freedom to live over the 'freedom' to kill, or not? If yes, your original point is rendered moot.
Juan:Are either Hayek, or Mises positivists by your definition? None of them believed in natural rights, so yes they were positivists. But it's to be expected - all 'great philosophers' laugh at such naive idea as natural rights...
A rather unconventional definition of the term "positivist". Furthermore, I do not comprehend how anybody who does not believe in divine relevation can possibly believe there are such things as natural rights, without the antropology that it provides, natural rights is a laughably obsolete theory.
Seph: laminustacitus:The freedom of the other person to kill you without restraints. In addition, your belief that someone has the freedom to life is nothing other than a metaphysical judgment of value. Do you believe in the freedom to live over the 'freedom' to kill, or not? If yes, your original point is rendered moot.
I say that positive freedoms are nothing but metaphysical judgments of value.
Furthermore, I do not comprehend how anybody who does not believe in divine relevation can possibly believe there are such things as natural rights,
without the antropology that it provides, natural rights is a laughably obsolete theory.
laminustacitus: Spideynw:Second of all, someone who supports the state by definition does not believe freedom can work. You redefine "freedom" to suit your ideology; all ideas of freedom have parameters, even the anarcho-capitalist one. I can also play the redefining game: anarcho-capitalism does not believe in freedom because it denies me the capability of killing as I so desire!
You think the state stops people from killing people?
But really, this conversation is moot. You cannot stop us from not complying with the state, and bringing about its downfall.
Spideynw: laminustacitus: Spideynw:Second of all, someone who supports the state by definition does not believe freedom can work. You redefine "freedom" to suit your ideology; all ideas of freedom have parameters, even the anarcho-capitalist one. I can also play the redefining game: anarcho-capitalism does not believe in freedom because it denies me the capability of killing as I so desire! You think the state stops people from killing people? But really, this conversation is moot. You cannot stop us from not complying with the state, and bringing about its downfall.
An efficient legal system is able to prevent crime from greatly harming society as a whole: compare Darfur, and Somalia to the Western world.
Spideynw:You cannot stop us from not complying with the state
I don't see any rebelling against the state; therefore, you speak falsely for you do comply with the state. As British common law deftly states: silence is consent, and while you may scream as much as you want against the "tyranny" of the state, ironically enough, your actions are silent for you do not take any steps against the state.
Spideynw:and bringing about its downfall.
You greatly overestimate your capabilities.
laminustacitus: I say that positive freedoms are nothing but metaphysical judgments of value.
Plenty of responses to that over here.
Juan:Furthermore, I do not comprehend how anybody who does not believe in divine relevation can possibly believe there are such things as natural rights, Yeah, well. But that's your problem. I suggest you look up "argumentum ad ignorantiam"
I suggest you actually learn some basic ethics for the fact is that natural rights, outside of the Catholic church (ironically enough) and other Christian religions, is a dead theory.
Juan: without the antropology that it provides, natural rights is a laughably obsolete theory. Oh yes. And your religious, pseudo-philosophical beliefs, are not laughably obsolete...and worse.
Without "religious, pseudo-philosophical beliefs" man is nothing but homo sapiens, a material animal, but I digress. Natural rights are simply untenable in a non-theistic framework for it lacks the necessary anthropology.
Capital Pumper: laminustacitus: I say that positive freedoms are nothing but metaphysical judgments of value. Plenty of responses to that over here.
And all, sorry to inform you, absolutely worthless (frankly, I had to write papers for actual philosophy classes, you know where the person your talking to knows another moral author other than Rothbard, so I didn't bother responding to you). The rights of man are all subjective valuations. It is not man qua homo sapiens that has the right to life; rather, it is the ontological valuation of what is a "man" by individuals that projects rights upon homo sapiens. By the way, if you are going to respond to this, leave religion out of it for religion has absolutely nothing to do with this point per se.
laminustacitus:An efficient legal system is able to prevent crime from greatly harming society as a whole: compare Darfur, and Somalia to the Western world.
Somalia is not full of people that are unwilling to comply with the "authorities". I don't know anything about Darfur.
laminustacitus: Spideynw:You cannot stop us from not complying with the state I don't see any rebelling against the state; therefore, you speak falsely for you do comply with the state. As British common law deftly states: silence is consent, and while you may scream as much as you want against the "tyranny" of the state, ironically enough, your actions are silent for you do not take any steps against the state.
You obviously have no idea what I am talking about. Check out freetalklive.com, freekeene.com, and freestateproject.org. Once enough people move there, they will stop paying property taxes. Say goodbye to the government of the city of Keene. Eventually, you will say goodbye to the government of the State of New Hampshire and all of the local governments in the area.
laminustacitus: Spideynw:and bringing about its downfall. You greatly overestimate you capabilities.
You greatly overestimate you capabilities.
You greatly underestimate a groups capabilities. http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=1620.0
The debate no more is about whether or not we should have a government. The debate is, what are you going to do when the governments disappear?
Compare the mass genocide the western world has inflicted on indigenous populations, and now peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Pakistan etc.
The law is meaingless Lam. It's just a fiction to keep the domestic population stupid and thankful. There are no laws, no rights, no justice. There is only the exercise of power covertly domestically, and brutally internationally.
laminustacitus: And all, sorry to inform you, absolutely worthless (frankly, I had to write papers for actual philosophy classes, you know where the person your talking to knows another moral author other than Rothbard, so I didn't bother responding to you). The rights of man are all subjective valuations. It is not man qua homo sapiens that has the right to life; rather, it is the ontological valuation of what is a "man" by individuals that projects rights upon homo sapiens. By the way, if you are going to respond to this, leave religion out of it for religion has absolutely nothing to do with this point per se.
I hope your papers included plenty of non-sequiturs and appeals to authority.
Spideynw: laminustacitus:An efficient legal system is able to prevent crime from greatly harming society as a whole: compare Darfur, and Somalia to the Western world. Somalia is not full of people that are unwilling to comply with the "authorities".
Somalia is not full of people that are unwilling to comply with the "authorities".
Your point being?
Spideynw: laminustacitus: Spideynw:and bringing about its downfall. You greatly overestimate you capabilities. You greatly underestimate a groups capabilities. http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=1620.0
The internet often deludes small fringe factions into thinking they are far more powerful than they really are, and that link is a great example.
Spideynw:The debate is, what are you going to do when the governments disappear?
The last time I checked the government is still going strong.
liberty student: laminustacitus:An efficient legal system is able to prevent crime from greatly harming society as a whole: compare Darfur, and Somalia to the Western world. Compare the mass genocide the western world has inflicted on indigenous populations, and now peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Pakistan etc.
And yet the Western world itself is quite peaceful, we need not throw out the baby with the bath water, nor should we equivocate all the policies of Western governments into a single idealized monster. I never stated that all Western policies are just, but rather that the Western world seems to have been rather successful in the creation of a prosperous society. Furthermore, I never said it has never unleashed destruction.
liberty student:The law is meaingless Lam. It's just a fiction to keep the domestic population stupid and thankful.
Someone has been drinking far too much cool-aid. Indeed, you sound like some nihilistic communist intellectual perched upon his ivory tower; in fact, it is a strange shift of perspective from the radically anti-intellectual voice you often seem to be.
liberty student:There are no laws
There certainly are laws: they are social conventions, one cannot deny the existence of that which is the case.
liberty student:no rights
Perhaps, but I never said that there were objective rights in the first place - you are pontificating to the wrong person
liberty student: no justice
There is justice: the yardstick of justice is how conductive the laws are to social interactions.
liberty student:There is only the exercise of power covertly domestically, and brutally internationally.
Again, I never said that what you say was not the case. Furthermore, the excercise of power can be done in a fashion that aids social interactions
laminustacitus:And yet the Western world itself is quite peaceful, we need not throw out the baby with the bath water, nor should we equivocate all the policies of Western governments into a single idealized monster. I never stated that all Western policies are just, but rather that the Western world seems to have been rather successful in the creation of a prosperous society. Furthermore, I never said it has never unleashed destruction.
The western world is not peaceful.
But even if it was the idealized peace you seem to believe occurs around you, the violence is merely exported and inflicted on foreigners, to create the false prosperity enjoyed in the west. Without Asian production and savings or Arab oil and sovereign wealth funds, the West would have had to face the financial guillotines much earlier. If not for the wanton destruction of Europe and Japan, America might never have become THE superpower.
The reality is, your social progress, and your western exceptionalism, has been built on the dead bodies of millions of non-whites and the poor. So don't preach about western law. It's a farce. The law you speak of is not order, and it is not justice. It's just a means of compartmentalizing and rationalizing the mass murder that has put you in the position you are in today, enjoying the spoils of war as you do.
laminustacitus:I suggest you actually learn some basic ethics for the fact is that natural rights, outside of the Catholic church (ironically enough) and other Christian religions, is a dead theory.
Without "religious, pseudo-philosophical beliefs" man is nothing but homo sapiens, a material animal, but I digress.
Natural rights are simply untenable in a non-theistic framework for it lacks the necessary anthropology.
Juan: No, you don't digress. You just repeat your usual nonsense.
No, you don't digress. You just repeat your usual nonsense.
I wish he would digress and respond to ladyattis's videos that I posted.