DASawyer:I guess my question is: what is the Anarchist's response, when outlaws (bandits, pirates, raiders, etc.) take over his town, and the people in the next town over say, "It's not my problem?"
Ever read The Lord of the Rings? There's a good example of militia victory in the last chapters.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Jon Irenicus: Do yourself a favour and open a text - a basic text - on free market defence, before spouting off ignorant nonsense like this, mmkay?
Do yourself a favour and open a text - a basic text - on free market defence, before spouting off ignorant nonsense like this, mmkay?
Are you talking to me? You could of at least refuted one of my points before you call me ignorant. I've also read about 1/5 of Hazlitt's Economy in One Lesson. Please point out the chapter where he defends an abolishment of government.
Who else would I be talking to? Not bothered to wade through that whole post, so if you wish to read up on the topic, give a book that actually concentrates on the topic a read, like For a New Liberty or The Market for Liberty or Democracy - the God that Failed or Anarchy and the Law or The Myth of National Defence etc. rather than issuing ignorant dismissals of a theory you've not taken the time to comprehend. Reading a 5th of a single (very basic) book in Austrian econ is nowhere near sufficient.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Natalie: Ever read The Lord of the Rings? There's a good example of militia victory in the last chapters.
It's funny because Lord of the Rings was about the separate human groups uniting together, under one leadership, to fight off the big baddie.
Jon Irenicus: Who else would I be talking to? Not bothered to wade through that whole post, so if you wish to read up on the topic, give a book that actually concentrates on the topic a read, like For a New Liberty or The Market for Liberty or Democracy - the God that Failed or Anarchy and the Law or The Myth of National Defence etc. rather than issuing ignorant dismissals of a theory you've not taken the time to comprehend. Reading a 5th of a single (very basic) book in Austrian econ is nowhere near sufficient.
Given that I'm so ignorant, and my arguments were thought up in about half a minute, it shouldn't be that hard to refute at least one of them, right? Also, why should I, the all ignorant non-believer, bother wading through a couple hundred pages of a theory that can't refute half-minute thought up arguments when I could be doing something I know will be more productive, like finishing Hazlitt for example?
Or, maybe you could get a clue, provide arguments that show an understanding of the theory, and make your post worth my time. I don't have the need, desire or impulse to educate the lazy. Stop acting like anyone has an obligation to provide an understanding for you, read the books on the topic, then return with an informed opinion on it, rather than nonsense you pulled out of your rear, to put it delicately.
Since you feel you've merited a response, I'll supply one with as many asserted claims as yours had.
beowulflee:Even if you have a gun, I just need to shoot you once first to kill you. Then I can take your wallet. What's stopping me?
One shot doesn't always kill someone. You take a risk every time you go to shoot someone for what they have in their wallets, which may or may not be something you'd want. Someone who needs to resort to theft in order to get money isn't going to have a fun time when everyone around them who earns money peacefully is able to afford enough firepower to blow them half way to the moon. But if this situation is undesireable (being robbed, mugged, and/or killed), I dont see how open support of an authority which does just that is somehow showing opposition to thievery and murder. It is much easier to "get someone's wallet" by offering something they want in return for it.
Plus, it's doubtful that most people are indecent enough to go around killing each other, else there would be no reason it wouldn't be happening on a massive scale.
beowulflee:Competition between armed forces? Instead of competing for your money by offering better services, they might as well kill the other group to eliminate competition. Better yet, they'll just kill you and take your wallet.
Eliminating your clientele isn't really a viable business. And shooting or forcing your competitors to shut down is EXACTLY WHAT THE STATE DOES. If you're opposed to such an idea, it's hypocrisy to support the state instead.
beowulflee:Also, when YOU'RE the one paying the cops the most, they'll do everything in YOUR interest.
When there are thousands of small militia groups and defense agencies you would need to bribe in order to do something illegal (aggressive), that's not a very effective strategy. Someone who wanted to wage open and unprovoked war against someone else would end up fighting a guerrilla war with everyone who had a vested interest in preventing such a war. With no one to impose a tax burden on, they would quickly find themselves out of funds.
beowulflee:No one would want to pay for a standing army or military research during times of peace. The problem comes when you need it, it'll be too late.
We should also fund research against a Decepticon invasion. Wouldn't want to be too late on that either.
beowulflee:The fact that there is a police and that they are bound by LAWS acts as a deterrent against criminals.
Actually, they act under and according to "laws", however they are not bound by them, they are bound by courts who interpret the law and If the government adopts an "unlawful" policy, there's nothing binding them to act "lawfully" or with discretion other than open rebellion.
beowulflee:Anarchy protects you from the threat of 'the State" but creates threats out of EVERYTHING else.
Yes, everything just magically becimes malicious and vile if the state fairy isn't there to protect us.
Our argument may be dumbed down thusly:
The minor premise is true due to the unjustifiability of its negation, and I refer you to the corpus of literature on Austrian for the verity of the major premise.
Savvy?
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
beowulflee:It's funny because Lord of the Rings was about the separate human groups uniting together, under one leadership, to fight off the big baddie.
Wrong.
beowulflee: Natalie: Ever read The Lord of the Rings? There's a good example of militia victory in the last chapters. Also, a great example of a libertarian society. Hobbiton and the Shire It's funny because Lord of the Rings was about the separate human groups uniting together, under one leadership, to fight off the big baddie.
Natalie: Ever read The Lord of the Rings? There's a good example of militia victory in the last chapters. Also, a great example of a libertarian society. Hobbiton and the Shire
Also, a great example of a libertarian society. Hobbiton and the Shire
Fool, read it again. Watching the movies doesn't count. Pay close attention to the riders of Rohan, the militia will be revealed.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Sorry Natalie, still working out the quoting feature
I feel as though I should point this out every time the term is used. The concept of anarchy is a completely human idea, and does not exist anywhere. The idea of anarchy is complete lawlessness, this does not exist, not in human society or anywhere in the universe. There are laws regarding everything, even if we do not know them.
When there is a riot for example, there are laws that every individual subscribes to. For instance. in riots there always seems to be looting. Other people yell, others run, others throw things and become violent. I would assert the idea that if you knew every individual in a riot, you could easily predict what they would in fact be doing.
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. I am sometimes called and anarchist by people who hear my views of smaller government. In the "wild wild west", there was law and order, but it fell more onto the much smaller individual town societies to determine their set of laws and ordnance's. I think the study of concepts like spontaneous order are very important for this reason.
I apologize for the tangent.
Justin:The concept of anarchy is a completely human idea, and does not exist anywhere.
It exists on my property.
Justin:The idea of anarchy is complete lawlessness, this does not exist, not in human society or anywhere in the universe.
This is not the idea of anarchy. Anarchy. An-without, archy- rulers. I've never been able to prove a negative, but if you think you're up to it, by all means continue.
Justin:I would assert the idea that if you knew every individual in a riot, you could easily predict what they would in fact be doing.
assertions require proof.
Justin: When there is a riot for example, there are laws that every individual subscribes to. For instance. in riots there always seems to be looting. Other people yell, others run, others throw things and become violent. I would assert the idea that if you knew every individual in a riot, you could easily predict what they would in fact be doing. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. I am sometimes called and anarchist by people who hear my views of smaller government. In the "wild wild west", there was law and order, but it fell more onto the much smaller individual town societies to determine their set of laws and ordnance's. I think the study of concepts like spontaneous order are very important for this reason. I apologize for the tangent.
This writing does not flow well. I use to read aloud what I wrote. If it sounded crappy, I would rewrite it. Read some more of the threads, or search the site to get a better idea of what you are walking into here. There is much wisdom here. Good Luck
Saan: It exists on my property.
-------------------------------------------
I was following the web definition, which reads "a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)"
In this, I will not argue semantics of what a word means by its root versus what the broad understanding of a word is. That being said, you cannot argue that anarchy exists on your property under my definition, because the property is under your rule. Unfortunately, due to large government intervention, we are forced under the rule of our government via violence and fear of violence.
Also, I am not trying to prove a negative point of anarchy, as you have asserted, there is no known negatives to it. I am simply saying that, a place without laws governing it's constituents does not exist. In this case the laws governing your property, and I know I'm being redundant here, is the laws of your own making.
Saan: There is much wisdom here. Good Luck
There is much wisdom here. Good Luck
I do not haphazardly state these thoughts of mine sir, I do quite a bit of studying myself. I place much thought into something, and as I have had to combat being called an anarchist, this is the best argument I have come up with. My only issue with the term anarchist is the negative connotation it has placed upon it by a largely ignorant society. I do use this site as a resource, and I am grateful it is here. Also, I want to thank you for challenging what I said, I cannot live in a world where people do not challenge my thoughts. If for no other reason than to find holes in my own arguments.
Also, I am new to actually quoting anyone here, so if I messed it up somehow, I do apologize.
I wasn't intending to offend you. Just kind of giving a guide.
That is a questionable thing to say. In the grand scheme of things you might be reside in anarchy - meaning you have no rulers over yourself. But in the framework of your property you are a monarch - the single ruler. Unless, of course, you are in a joint ownership over property, in which case you would live in oligarchy.
JackSkylark:But in the framework of your property you are a monarch - the single ruler.
Strawman. I never said I rule over other humans on my property. Those present on my property exist without rulers. I do not coerce them in any way at all. I trade with them. I am not a monarch, nor in joint ownership would I be an oligarch. I am but a property owner, and in the case of joint ownership I am also only a property owner in association with another property owner. No law, no police, no regulations, just a deal for rent vs board.
How is this a Monarchy, or in the case of joint ownership, an Oligarchy. You are making an assumption that there will always be a monopoly of force, i.e. might makes right. So, yes Anarchy exists on my property.
Rohan was a pretty typical system of nobility whose personal armies could be called upon to serve the King. There were no militias in LOTR so far as I can remember (and I've got the Silmarillion, ho ho!). Even the hobbits had the constables who were paramilitary gendarmes empowered by the State.
Saan: Fool, read it again. Watching the movies doesn't count. Pay close attention to the riders of Rohan, the militia will be revealed.
Uhh... the Rohan militia was forced, a draft army. In this way, the army was more in line with the army of Switzerland. I see no 'free-market' here. What about the wars between the Rohan and the Dunland - these were surely not just wars of non-aggression?
The only Tolkein civilization closest to anarchy (in the broad sense) were the hobbits. But, even these were more like the germanic form of patriarchal fiefs than the autonomous freedom we associate with anarchy. The figurehead governments of the shire are just as dangerous as the absoulute monarchies of Rohan and Gondor.
But this is way off topic.
Saan:You are making an assumption that there will always be a monopoly of force, i.e. might makes right
This is an excellent point for me think on. As far as I can think of it on the fly, the only problem with that statement is the difference between you and government (and this is huge, LOL) is government by nature owns nothing and steals what it does have. You at least purchased your property in some form.
This is no strawman, you have used this term too loosely. There will always be a monopoly of force, yes. The question is in the direction and the scope this force may rightfull take. In your property only you may legitimately make and, unless delegated, carry out the laws you decree. In this way you are the absolute monarch of your estate.
When someone steps foot on your land, they are not your property - therefore you may not have the full extent of ownership. But that does not make exclusive ownership over property any less monarchical.
In effect, however, you do rule over other humans on your property, unless you have no rules, have never asked someone to leave and make no claims to ownership (in which case you can not call it your property).
Justin:I feel as though I should point this out every time the term is used. The concept of anarchy is a completely human idea, and does not exist anywhere. The idea of anarchy is complete lawlessness
Knight_of_BAAWA: Justin:I feel as though I should point this out every time the term is used. The concept of anarchy is a completely human idea, and does not exist anywhere. The idea of anarchy is complete lawlessnessNo, it isn't.. Laws don't require a government.
My statement as a whole puts forth the idea that laws exist without government. Natural laws of a black hole for example, exist whether you know them or not. My argument is such that even in the absence of any form of government, laws still exist.
Justin: My statement as a whole puts forth the idea that laws exist without government. Natural laws of a black hole for example, exist whether you know them or not. My argument is such that even in the absence of any form of government, laws still exist.
Justin, for the true anarchist (not the bomb-tossing, rebel without a cause sense, but the actual philosophical sense), this is exactly the point. The status quo belief is that the absence of rulers there is also an absence of law, with people running amuck causing mayhem and such. Man cannot survive without a ruler, goes the prevailing wisdom.
The Anarchist's response is that this is not true. We do not need a king, or a parliament, or a president, or anything of the sort for the purposes of going about our daily business. People dealing with each other and developing customary law over time is sufficient. The State, being a monopoly over the use of force with the right to rob anyone collect taxes within a particular area of territory (and anywhere else, if he the ruler can get away with it), is both undesirable and unnecessary.
In essence, you are arguing in favor of anarchism, though you don't know it. True "anarchy" as the conventional definition puts it (never trust a "web definition" of an unpopular and misunderstood ideology) cannot truly exist, and what the term generally refers to is not the natural state of society in the absence of rulers, but rather the intensive period of violence that almost inevitably follows the downfall of rulers, as a people takes vengeance for years of injustice on the part of their rulers and their collaborators.
Still, I do believe you are correct with regard to land ownership. "Ownership" of land implies rulership over it, the authority to expel any individual with or without cause, to demand any terms for tenancy, and, in some places, even the right to shoot at people who tresspass. And in places where the state assures the security of this claim using taxes on wages and commerce, this monopoly isn't even balanced against the need to defend this claim (as under feudal land claims). I don't know where our landowning friend lives, or the terms of his "ownership" of land are. But just because the kink declines to excercise his theoretical authority to the fullest extent, doesn't make him any less a king, if there are those (agents of the state) who are prepared to enforce his will, should he choose to excercise it.
Indeed, I believe it is the necessity of protecting land claims against those who would disregard them in the absence of a threat of force backing it up that is the root of the state. The owners can be one or many, the claim can be large or small, but the moment a man starts using resourced derived not from his own labor, but from his claim over the produce of others inhabiting "his" land, to hire the muscle necessary to protect his arrangement against those who would violate his claim (chiefly the landless, but other lords as well), a state has been born. Of course, far more abusive is when he turns his hired muscle into robbers who claim a portion of his tenants wages... and STILL keeps all the rent for himself.
Yes, your land is your subject indeed.
...
It seems the anarchy would be the breeding ground of conflict. While I appreciate the fundamentals, I wonder if a society could maintain an anarchy (from both internal manifistations as well as foreign threats)?
Only to question - what happens when the market doesn't support the need?
Free markets work fantastic for risk/reward gainable equity. A demand creates supply.
However, in terms of a need for defense. Those may not be willing to contribute to a collective defense (for numerous reasons - costs, belief, etc.). None-the-less it may be neccessary. When does an anarchy face the question as to when to IMPOSE a need to secure the collective?
For sure I want my property and rights protected, but when the collective is threaten - then doesn't my neighbors interest become my own?
One could muster a militia - but that may not be enough. What happens then?
I don't know - but would like to hear the views of others.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." -Thomas Paine
This is discussed at length in The Market For Liberty, starting around page 128.
http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf
I would think that in terms of a need for defense on the spot, would everyone in this situation not be armed?
At very least the majority of the country would. What is a better defense than every citizen having the means to defend themselves.
Justin:At very least the majority of the country would.
What country?
Justin:What is a better defense than every citizen having the means to defend themselves.
Every citizen not having to defend themselves.
liberty student: Justin:What is a better defense than every citizen having the means to defend themselves. Every citizen not having to defend themselves.
Maybe it's naive, but I don't carry a weapon currently and I don't think that would change much even if the state 100% disappeared tomorrow.
MatthewF:Maybe it's naive, but I don't carry a weapon currently and I don't think that would change much even if the state 100% disappeared tomorrow.
I don't think it is naive.
liberty student: Justin:At very least the majority of the country would. What country?
Haha, well played. How about, what's better than every citizen of the world being allowed to protect themselves.
I don't carry a gun either, but I can shoot almost any type of guy. Knowing how is the next best thing to actually having a gun. Besides, there is a reasonable chance you wouldn't mind having a gun if you knew how to shoot and understood the ramifications of shooting someone. Something a lot of state sponsored gun toting maniacs don't understand.
LoL, that would be ideal.
How about this argument:
Government is needed to solve conflicts that cannot be solved voluntarily. Without this institution, one will have anarchy, i. e., civil war and ganster war.
alimentarius: How about this argument: Government is needed to solve conflicts that cannot be solved voluntarily. Without this institution, one will have anarchy, i. e., civil war and ganster war.
The word you're looking for there is chaos, not anarchy. Why exactly is it necissary, why can't we use other institutions to solve this problem. The United States wouldn't even necissarily have to totally die. The current government could become a "enclave" and keep order the best that it could, other organisations could also assist in providing defence along with any other voluntary agency. Any organisation wishing to prevent the theft of property or initiation of agression against others would be free to do so.
Don't we need a system for rational procedures to investigate, put people on trial etc?
alimentarius:Don't we need a system for rational procedures to investigate, put people on trial etc?
Sure. But it doesn't have to be a monopoly or involuntary.
Stateless Law in the Highlands of Guatemala
But if people don't agree whether to imprison a culprit or not?
alimentarius: But if people don't agree whether to imprison a culprit or not?
Don't understand. Why are we worried about doing things people don't want to do? How would that be justice?
Doesn't anerchy presuppose that the culprit accepts his sentence?
in the face of border raider's like Vikings or a neighboring state, i would think that a wealthy person or coalition would raise and equip a mercenary battalion, equipped with state-of-the-art, or near state-of-the-art gear to provide an effective defense. of course, the cost for the region in question would likely be high, and there is the fear that the wealthy person or coalition or the mercenaries themselves would take over the region.
still, the vague prospect that a group could organize themselves and take over a region is vastly preferable to the fait accompli we now have.