So how exactly would you ensure that these private military corporations and volunteer groups wouldn't wage warfare over more territory? or become states themselves? What is preventing people from Civil War without a State such as ours?
In the Anarchic society of Tribal England, civil conflict was the norm among the Celts, Jutes, and other tribes. In a world of Private Property rights, why wouldn't land owners engage in conflict to obtain more land?
liberty student: z1235:To paraphrase Tom Cruise: "Show me an anarchy!" I just described numerous systems in anarchy.
z1235:To paraphrase Tom Cruise: "Show me an anarchy!"
I just described numerous systems in anarchy.
No, I meant literally. Please show me one now, or point to one that has existed in the past.
liberty student: The onus on you is to either accept such anarchy between states, cities and countries, or not. So please answer my question directly. Is it acceptable for America to have different laws than China, and New York to have different laws than London, or not? It is a very simple inquiry. No need to diverge into unprovable claims about human nature, sustainability, or armchair philosophy etc. I'm asking you to respect the debate and answer the question definitively.
The onus on you is to either accept such anarchy between states, cities and countries, or not. So please answer my question directly.
Is it acceptable for America to have different laws than China, and New York to have different laws than London, or not?
It is a very simple inquiry. No need to diverge into unprovable claims about human nature, sustainability, or armchair philosophy etc.
I'm asking you to respect the debate and answer the question definitively.
What do you mean by "acceptable"? Yes, I accept different laws over different territories. In each and every one of those cases, the laws there regulate and limit the freedoms of each and every agent contained in them, so SOME level of "coercion" exists at every level of the hierachy and all across the planet. It is also apparent that a lot of uniformity (and "coercion") exists over large swaths of territory and population. Perhaps just large enough to ensure sustainability? Cities within a state and states within a country are obviously not allowed to chose laws that are in large conflicts with the laws of the hierarchy above them. I don't think that any US town would be allowed to have this law: "Any townsman that sees a car driving above 25mph down Main Street MUST shoot to kill the driver or pay a $10k penalty."
So you can perhaps talk about poly-centrist "anarchy" between country laws but I have a feeling that it is not the anarchy you're really idealizing about.
Now, in return, how about you definitively show me an actual (real) anarchy society either now or in the past.
Z.
z1235:We have enough centuries of human history to at least HINT that perhaps paying for security with ONLY money may not be a good enough bargain.
z1235:Seems like we ALSO have to throw in at least some FREEDOM into the bargain pot, I'm afraid, as this part has been THE single most prevalent descriptor of any sustainable society known to man.
Your burden is not to show that I need to "throw freedom into the bargain pot", but that there are no alternatives to coercion.
nirgrahamUK: im sorry i dont do hints and appearances. give me facts and arguments or go away.
im sorry i dont do hints and appearances. give me facts and arguments or go away.
Is this coming from the coercive branch of the anarchist spectrum? May I propose that you simply disregard my posts while I continue my discussions with others? Net result would be the same for you, and slightly better for me and perhaps for others.
z1235:So you can perhaps talk about poly-centrist "anarchy" between country laws but I have a feeling that it is not the anarchy you're really idealizing about.
If A and B have no adjudicators, or more than one, they are in anarchy. This scenario exists right now. If I am A and B is the state, there is no third party to settle our disputes, so we are in anarchy. If A is from Bolivia and B is from Cuba, they are in anarchy because there is no third party to settle their dispute. Etc etc.
Here is a condition under which Anarchy does not work: If A is much more powerful than B. The state is more powerful than any one individual. Therefore, anarchy between the individual and the state is be disastrous. See history.
Snowflake:Why is money alone not good enough? It is good enough for the military industrial complex...
Honestly, I don't know. I wish it was. I wish I could simply buy security and prosperity without giving up ANY freedom. I'm only observing that giving up some individual freedom (being subjected to a uniform monopoly law and enforcement system) has consistently been a characteristic of every society that has ever existed. There has not been a single one that's been able to sustain itself without that ingredient.
Snowflake: Your burden is not to show that I need to "throw freedom into the bargain pot", but that there are no alternatives to coercion.
It's impossible to prove a negative (a non-existance of something -- or, alternatives to coercion). It'd much easier for you to prove the existance of an alternative, if indeed one actually existed in reality.
z1235: nirgrahamUK: im sorry i dont do hints and appearances. give me facts and arguments or go away. Is this coming from the coercive branch of the anarchist spectrum? May I propose that you simply disregard my posts while I continue my discussions with others? Net result would be the same for you, and slightly better for me and perhaps for others. Z.
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. Does anyone else think that these morons who keep posting here, and often have stock avatars, are paid or part of some halfwit statist group though?
Perhaps this is just some side effect of the incredible sense of liberation I feel from "getting it". It just makes me sad and confused that this person supposedly has no care that he advocates suspending rationality, yet we should trust him in his statist apologia. It's either an embarrassing Lebensformen or a despicable and annoying dog and pony show.
Anyhow z123456, I know that you will conveniently ignore anyone who calls you out on your bullshit, and just keep spewing as hard as you can. Entertain me though with your definition of "planetary justice" from here.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
z1235:I wish I could simply buy security and prosperity without giving up ANY freedom
z1235: I'm only observing that giving up some individual freedom (being subjected to a uniform monopoly law and enforcement system) has consistently been a characteristic of every society that has ever existed. There has not been a single one that's been able to sustain itself without that ingredient.
I think you are convinced by the historical arguments because you think government has always been there and always will be, but the origins of government are far shakier and short-lived than you might imagine. The first governments arose when people started settling down and practicing agriculture. Barbarians came in and subjugated these farmers and the feudal system grew out of that. (Btw, this example does not prove anarchy is futile, it just proves that if a bunch of buff guys from yonder sneak up on you, you're screwed)
Practically all modern governments grew out of this scenario. Its not like governments sprang up around the world spontaneously for different sets of reasons. The transition between hunter-gatherer and agriculturalist society is just particularly vulnerable to foreign threats. Unfortunately, information traveled slowly and the serfs never got a chance to correct their mistake of being caught unprepared. But the free market is all about correcting mistakes. We're very good at it now. Bring it on Attila!
E. R. Olovetto: I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. Does anyone else think that these morons who keep posting here, and often have stock avatars, are paid or part of some halfwit statist group though?
I'm actually a program (not very well) written by the CIA -- v2.0 Self-deprecating Edition
E. R. Olovetto: Anyhow z123456, I know that you will conveniently ignore anyone who calls you out on your bullshit, and just keep spewing as hard as you can. Entertain me though with your definition of "planetary justice" from here.
Kindly entertain yourself until you stop with your insults and apologize. I wasn't the one introducing "planetary justice" into the discussion.
I'm only observing that giving up some individual freedom (being subjected to a uniform monopoly law and enforcement system) has consistently been a characteristic of every society that has ever existed. There has not been a single one that's been able to sustain itself without that ingredient.
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."
z1235:Kindly entertain yourself until you stop with your insults and apologize. I wasn't the one introducing "planetary justice" into the discussion. Z.
I have nothing to apologize for. Feel free to apologize for your repeated fallacious statements.
Who cares who introduced "planetary justice"? Why are you using the term if you can't define it?
Hey look! It's my hands. I'm waving them. Handwaving, yay. This is your language right?
Your opinion is frankly "tired". We know better now than to buy into it.
z1235: I'm not ignoring bottom-up. I (and history) don't care how uniformity was achieved, as long it's sustainable and stable beyond the threshold required for a society to prosper. If anarchist poly-centric (bottom up) legal system is indeed able to create a sustainable and stable uniform system, wouldn't you think it should've done it by now, at least once? Don't you think there has to be something inherently related to human nature that has converged ALL of 1000+ attempts at human society to converge towards uniform law and enforcement? I mean, even communism has had a record of sustainability and stability over many millions of people-years. What's anarchism's record? Doesn't that fact bother you even a little bit, or at least question the assumptions that you take for granted in your anarchist model?
I'm not ignoring bottom-up. I (and history) don't care how uniformity was achieved, as long it's sustainable and stable beyond the threshold required for a society to prosper. If anarchist poly-centric (bottom up) legal system is indeed able to create a sustainable and stable uniform system, wouldn't you think it should've done it by now, at least once? Don't you think there has to be something inherently related to human nature that has converged ALL of 1000+ attempts at human society to converge towards uniform law and enforcement? I mean, even communism has had a record of sustainability and stability over many millions of people-years. What's anarchism's record? Doesn't that fact bother you even a little bit, or at least question the assumptions that you take for granted in your anarchist model?
Well, there's always the example of Gaelic Ireland, which had no monopolistic rulers / law for 1000+ years (and fought off English invasions for 600 of those years). There's also Medieval Iceland, which also had no monopolistic rulers / law for several hundred years.
Though it's likely if you were really open to finding out such things, you would have done so already on your own.
Still no clear and definitive answer. Why are you afraid to offer a clear yes or no response?
z1235: Michael J Green:Like most statists, you confuse uniformity with top-down, coercive organization - ignoring bottom-up, voluntary organization. I'm not ignoring bottom-up. I (and history) don't care how uniformity was achieved, as long it's sustainable and stable beyond the threshold required for a society to prosper. If anarchist poly-centric (bottom up) legal system is indeed able to create a sustainable and stable uniform system, wouldn't you think it should've done it by now, at least once? Don't you think there has to be something inherently related to human nature that has converged ALL of 1000+ attempts at human society to converge towards uniform law and enforcement? I mean, even communism has had a record of sustainability and stability over many millions of people-years. What's anarchism's record? Doesn't that fact bother you even a little bit, or at least question the assumptions that you take for granted in your anarchist model?
Michael J Green:Like most statists, you confuse uniformity with top-down, coercive organization - ignoring bottom-up, voluntary organization.
These are valid and relevant questions. I've attempted to answer them here.
Why anarchy fails
LS: Couple of days ago you asked me to explain the meaning of "a lot" of violence that I believe a realistic model of human self-interest MUST take into account . "A lot" means "enough" to make a society of free human agents unsustainable without uniform laws and enforcement.
Refer to the following reactions:
nirgrahamUK :im sorry i dont do hints and appearances. give me facts and arguments or go away.
E. R. Olovetto :Does anyone else think that these morons who keep posting here, and often have stock avatars, are paid or part of some halfwit statist group though? It's either an embarrassing Lebensformen or a despicable and annoying dog and pony show.Anyhow z123456, I know that you will conveniently ignore anyone who calls you out on your bullshit, and just keep spewing as hard as you can..
Refer also to the uniform laws and enforcement that this (and every other) forum of free human agents REGULARLY has in order to make itself sustainable:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19.aspx
Much in the same way I described is needed for a sustainable larger society, each agent participating in this forum is COERCED into giving up SOME freedom to the uniform rules and enforcement, for the sake of sustainability. Much in the same way I refered to the 1000+ experiments in human organization through history, there are also NO forums (among the thousands online) without moderators enforcing uniform rules over the agents participating in them.
I also just thought of a better way to explain what I mean. Consider "100%" agents containing 100% violence in their self-interest model (rabid wolfes, "shoot first ask questions later" lunatics, etc) on one end, and on the other end of the spectrum "0%" agents containing 0% violence in their self-interest model ("turn the other cheek" buddhists -- not many other examples, but just imagine an evolved agent that would NEVER resort to violence). A society of "100%" agents is ONLY sustainable if they are ALL caged and chained so they don't gouge each others guts out resulting in 0% freedom (100% coercion) . On the other hand, a society of "0%" agents MAY be sustainable without ANY limitations to freedom (including laws and enforcement of any kind) resulting in 100% freedom (0% coercion) or ANARCHY.
Well, place humans (with their current level of evolution) anywhere on this scale. I claim that they'd have to be pretty darn close to "0%" violence agents in order to make coercion-less society sustainable. If we agree on this, then the only thing we may disagree on is where exactly the humans are on this sliding scale. Obviously, my "x%" violence assumption in the model is higher than yours and that's where our disagreements come from.
z1235: Much in the same way I described is needed for a sustainable larger society, each agent participating in this forum is COERCED into giving up SOME freedom to the uniform rules and enforcement, for the sake of sustainability. Much in the same way I refered to the 1000+ experiments in human organization through history, there are also NO forums (among the thousands online) without moderators enforcing uniform rules over the agents participating in them.
You are not being coerced for you are not being forced to participate in this forum against your voluntary choice. The rules are a condition for participation authorized by the owners of this website but participation is voluntary! No individual freedom or private property of yours was violated.