They tried to start one of these in Madagascar. Even had the backing of the current head of the country.
His advocacy of creating a free economic zone was spun by his political enemies as giving land to foreigners and foreign corporations for free, yada yada, and he was forced to pull support for his own political survival.
I think the only way this would work is to create floating properties off the coast of these territories so as to deny the sort of political problem using existing territory would cause.
See what I mean?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: The problem I have with the idea - as posted - is that the charter city would still be a state.
The problem I have with the idea - as posted - is that the charter city would still be a state.
As opposed to what, anarchism? You're only going to have a state replace a state.
Autolykos:However, I actually have a similar proposal. It would simply involve purchasing land from a national government under allodial/sovereign title. The national government would thus be relinquishing all ownership of the land in question.
I consider my floating city concept more viable because when was the last time a government allowed something like this to actually happen? Never. You can buy islands, I guess, but not one big enough to actually support a free society of any size. Unlike with my suggestion where size is an open question.
Autolykos: At that point, what I would do is sell and rent smaller pieces of that land to others, along with developing what I have left. Those who I sold them to would then have allodial/sovereign title of that piece. In other words, now I have relinquished all ownership of those land parcels. The result would not be what I'd call a unified community. Instead, it would be a patchwork of privately-owned areas of land. Where's the state in that?
At that point, what I would do is sell and rent smaller pieces of that land to others, along with developing what I have left. Those who I sold them to would then have allodial/sovereign title of that piece. In other words, now I have relinquished all ownership of those land parcels.
The result would not be what I'd call a unified community. Instead, it would be a patchwork of privately-owned areas of land. Where's the state in that?
You'd have a frontier situation. And in a frontier situation, bordering on anarchy, where everyone's a law to themselves, they would inevitably group together to hire a sheriff, or something along those lines, and now you have a state.
You're not going to be able to get away with a stance that a power vacuum is a principle position that can last. All around the world, people have created governments because it fulfills a need we have, multiple needs. It's not just tradition, it's a necessity.
I suggest the best government is principled min-cap. That's something people can latch onto. I really don't think as situation of zero political existence is one that's going to last for long. All you need is your first major criminal and the calls for a posse develop, and when vigilante justice gets out of hand now you need laws to restrain them, and a "sheriff" to enforce them, blah.
I'm not going to mince words with you, Anemone.
Anemone:As opposed to what, anarchism? You're only going to have a state replace a state.
What in the world is this supposed to mean? How in the world does this make any sense at all?
Anemone:I consider my floating city concept more viable because when was the last time a government allowed something like this to actually happen? Never.
That's nice. I couldn't care less what you think, so this is meaningless to me and proves nothing.
Anemone:You can buy islands, I guess, but not one big enough to actually support a free society of any size.
Anemone:Unlike with my suggestion where size is an open question.
LOL
Anemone:You'd have a frontier situation. And in a frontier situation, bordering on anarchy, where everyone's a law to themselves, they would inevitably group together to hire a sheriff, or something along those lines, and now you have a state.
It's a shame you have your head so far inside a small box.
Explain to me just what exactly you mean by "everyone's a law to themselves". Then please prove - since you're claiming it's inevitable - that everyone would "group together" (LOL WUT) to hire only one "sherrif" (LOL WUT). I'm not deterred by your weasel phrase "or something along those lines".
Anemone:You're not going to be able to get away with a stance that a power vacuum is a principle position that can last. All around the world, people have created governments because it fulfills a need we have, multiple needs. It's not just tradition, it's a necessity.
Explain to me just what exactly you mean by "power vacuum". Note that, in order to do this, you'll need to explain to me just what exactly you mean by "power". I am then going to hold you to those definitions and call you out every single time you equivocate on them.
After that, please prove that government is necessary. This requires logic, not (anything claimed to be) empirical evidence.
Anemone:I suggest the best government is principled min-cap. That's something people can latch onto. I really don't think as situation of zero political existence is one that's going to last for long. All you need is your first major criminal and the calls for a posse develop, and when vigilante justice gets out of hand now you need laws to restrain them, and a "sheriff" to enforce them, blah.
Are you being deliberately obtuse about anarcho-capitalism? I suspect you are.
Autolykos: Anemone:As opposed to what, anarchism? You're only going to have a state replace a state. What in the world is this supposed to mean? How in the world does this make any sense at all?
If you don't have a state you have anarchism. It's basically a binary option. What's not to understand?
Autolykos: Anemone:I consider my floating city concept more viable because when was the last time a government allowed something like this to actually happen? Never. That's nice. I couldn't care less what you think, so this is meaningless to me and proves nothing.
It's not what I think, it's a historical reality. You don't have to get personal about it. I harbor you no ill will, let's keep it civil.
Autolykos: Anemone:You can buy islands, I guess, but not one big enough to actually support a free society of any size. What in the world is this supposed to mean? How in the world does this make any sense at all?
When I thought about what sorts of property governments actually sell, islands are the only example. But no one's going to sell Sicily. They sell tiny islands. How is this hard to understand? It's what you said--buy territory from governments.
Autolykos: Anemone:Unlike with my suggestion where size is an open question. LOL
That's not a response. In a floating territory, you can make as much or as little land as you need. What's your solution? Islands aren't extendable, and no government is going to sell you mainlad. So what then.
Autolykos: Anemone:You'd have a frontier situation. And in a frontier situation, bordering on anarchy, where everyone's a law to themselves, they would inevitably group together to hire a sheriff, or something along those lines, and now you have a state. It's a shame you have your head so far inside a small box. Explain to me just what exactly you mean by "everyone's a law to themselves".
Explain to me just what exactly you mean by "everyone's a law to themselves".
Wow. You just go through saying that that every property owner in your proposed scenario would be their own sovereign. That's what it means to be a law to yourself--it's your unchallenged jurisdiction.
Autolykos:Then please prove - since you're claiming it's inevitable - that everyone would "group together" (LOL WUT) to hire only one "sherrif" (LOL WUT). I'm not deterred by your weasel phrase "or something along those lines".
It's just a matter of historical fact. It's exactly what happened in the frontiers where there were no established governments. They banded together for protection and hired the first government representative--the sheriff. You think that wouldn't happen in your society? Prove that, because that's the odd claim here, not what I said.
Autolykos: Anemone:You're not going to be able to get away with a stance that a power vacuum is a principle position that can last. All around the world, people have created governments because it fulfills a need we have, multiple needs. It's not just tradition, it's a necessity. Explain to me just what exactly you mean by "power vacuum".
Explain to me just what exactly you mean by "power vacuum".
Power vaccum: A territory with no government or law.
Autolykos:Note that, in order to do this, you'll need to explain to me just what exactly you mean by "power".
Power, public sanction to use coercion in the enforcement of law.
Autolykos:I am then going to hold you to those definitions and call you out every single time you equivocate on them.
Fine.
Autolykos:After that, please prove that government is necessary. This requires logic, not (anything claimed to be) empirical evidence.
No, empirical evidence is enough. Logic can only help us grok why human beings find governments to be necessary. It's a given that we find governments to be necessary, since we've always chosen to have them. They are fulfilling a need. We use logic to pick apart that fact, to analyze that need, that historical reality. Again, your claim is the weird one in this covnersation. Show us a society where there is no government--that's the weird situation. And there have existed exactly zero long-term anarchist societies. So why is the onus on me to prove that we need government? The onus is on you to show or make any reasonable claim as to why it could be possible for there to be an anarchist society.
Autolykos: Anemone:I suggest the best government is principled min-cap. That's something people can latch onto. I really don't think as situation of zero political existence is one that's going to last for long. All you need is your first major criminal and the calls for a posse develop, and when vigilante justice gets out of hand now you need laws to restrain them, and a "sheriff" to enforce them, blah. Are you being deliberately obtuse about anarcho-capitalism? I suspect you are.
No, I just reject the term "anarch" within an-cap. So I will use min-cap from now on. It's an accurate term for my ideal society, minimalist government with capitalism. There's no anarchy in that equation.
Anemone:If you don't have a state you have anarchism. It's basically a binary option. What's not to understand?
Well no, that doesn't seem to be what you're saying at all. Rather, you seem to be saying that there's no real option at all. After all, you essentially wrote earlier that anarchism would lead to a state replacing a state - in spite of "anarchism" meaning "absence of a state".
Anemone:It's not what I think, it's a historical reality. You don't have to get personal about it. I harbor you no ill will, let's keep it civil.
You've already gotten personal about it, what with you injecting things like "my floating city concept" and the like.
Anemone:When I thought about what sorts of property governments actually sell, islands are the only example. But no one's going to sell Sicily. They sell tiny islands. How is this hard to understand? It's what you said--buy territory from governments.
I was referring to the notion of "big enough to actually support a free society of any size". You leave entirely unexplained what you mean by this. Are the rest of us supposed to be mind-readers? Or do you presume to have the godlike power to transmit your thoughts directly into our brains?
Anemone:That's not a response. In a floating territory, you can make as much or as little land as you need. What's your solution? Islands aren't extendable, and no government is going to sell you mainlad. So what then.
It was a response, just not one that you liked. Oh well. Sorry but I'm not here to please you. My point was to show how hilarious I think it is that you keep plugging for your own pet project.
Now then, you asked my what my solution is. Why do I need a solution at all in order to attack yours? (I don't.)
Anemone:Wow. You just go through saying that that every property owner in your proposed scenario would be their own sovereign. That's what it means to be a law to yourself--it's your unchallenged jurisdiction.
Then property ownership is sovereignty, is it not?
Anemone:It's just a matter of historical fact. It's exactly what happened in the frontiers where there were no established governments. They banded together for protection and hired the first government representative--the sheriff. You think that wouldn't happen in your society? Prove that, because that's the odd claim here, not what I said.
I take this as tacit admission that it's not inevitable that everyone would "group together" to hire only one "sheriff".
And what is this about "your society"? It wouldn't be my society. I wouldn't own it, run it, or anything like that.
Anemone:Power vaccum: A territory with no government or law.
Are you using the words "government" and "law" with implicit connotations of monopoly?
Anemone:Power, public sanction to use coercion in the enforcement of law.
So then a better definition of "power vacuum" would then be "a territory without public sanction to use coercion in the enforcement of law", right?
Anemone:Fine.
That's right.
Anemone:No, empirical evidence is enough.
No it isn't.
Anemone:Logic can only help us grok why human beings find governments to be necessary. It's a given that we find governments to be necessary, since we've always chosen to have them. They are fulfilling a need. We use logic to pick apart that fact, to analyze that need, that historical reality. Again, your claim is the weird one in this covnersation. Show us a society where there is no government--that's the weird situation. And there have existed exactly zero long-term anarchist societies. So why is the onus on me to prove that we need government? The onus is on you to show or make any reasonable claim as to why it could be possible for there to be an anarchist society.
I couldn't care less how "weird" my claim is to you. Calling a claim "weird" certainly doesn't magically shift the burden of proof onto one's opponent.
What you mean "we", Paleface? How have I chosen to "have" a government?
You're the one who asserted that government is necessary. Therefore the burden of proof rests with you to logically defend that assertion.
Anemone:No, I just reject the term "anarch" within an-cap. So I will use min-cap from now on. It's an accurate term for my ideal society, minimalist government with capitalism. There's no anarchy in that equation.
Oh come on. You know full well that I was referring to your characterization of anarcho-capitalism: "All you need is your first major criminal and the calls for a posse develop, and when vigilante justice gets out of hand now you need laws to restrain them, and a 'sheriff' to enforce them, blah." Now answer my question. Are you being deliberately obtuse about anarcho-capitalism? Yes or no?
Cool, let's talk about it.
Autolykos:you essentially wrote earlier that anarchism would lead to a state replacing a state - in spite of "anarchism" meaning "absence of a state".
Well, regardless of what I said before, here's what I think: that the absense of a state, ie: anarchism, actually means the establishment of a tribal group as the highest authority. That's a step backwards, because a tribal group substitutes loyalty to the group for loyalty to principles in the form of laws.
Autolykos:You've already gotten personal about it, what with you injecting things like "my floating city concept" and the like.
I maintain that two people can have a discussion that's more akin to a dance than a war, in a dance both sides benefit when it's over. I'm not sure your philosophy of discussion, but you seem to take a harder stance and get flustered. I don't get flustered.
Autolykos:My point was to show how hilarious I think it is that you keep plugging for your own pet project.
Well, that's really not an honorable motive.
Autolykos:Now then, you asked my what my solution is. Why do I need a solution at all in order to attack yours? (I don't.)
Again, a discussion shouldn't be about "attacks".
Autolykos:Then property ownership is sovereignty, is it not?
Yes. Unless you've given up some of that sovereignty and invested it in a local government, which is what people do all the time and would do in my concept of a floating nation. You want perfect sovereignty you can go live in the woods. People don't generally do that however.
Autolykos:I take this as tacit admission that it's not inevitable that everyone would "group together" to hire only one "sheriff".
I think you're equivocating on "only one", the number of sheriff's was not essential to the discussion.
Autolykos:Are you using the words "government" and "law" with implicit connotations of monopoly?
Not necessarily.
Autolykos:So then a better definition of "power vacuum" would then be "a territory without public sanction to use coercion in the enforcement of law", right?
A territory with any entity posses that public sanction, sure. Of course that's assuming a republic. Power can just as easily be filled by one whom takes power without public sanction, becoming a tribal leader or dictator, as they would in your preferred scenario of anarchism.
Autolykos:I couldn't care less how "weird" my claim is to you. Calling a claim "weird" certainly doesn't magically shift the burden of proof onto one's opponent.
You're making a claim. Burden of proof is on you. So, I disagree. Show us any historical support for the viability of an anarchist society. It's not like it should be hard, since all people groups began originally in a state of anarchy!
Autolykos:What you mean "we", Paleface? How have I chosen to "have" a government? You're the one who asserted that government is necessary. Therefore the burden of proof rests with you to logically defend that assertion.
I did defend it. I point at all of recorded human history. Proved. Done. Mankind needs at least some government. The actual historical problem is that we've gotten too much of it. Every people group, bar none, has chosen to invest power in a government of some form at least to keep peace if nothing else. It happens spontaneously, but surely.
At least we can say, if there were any people groups that decided to remain anarchistic, they have not survived.
Autolykos:Oh come on. You know full well that I was referring to your characterization of anarcho-capitalism: "All you need is your first major criminal and the calls for a posse develop, and when vigilante justice gets out of hand now you need laws to restrain them, and a 'sheriff' to enforce them, blah." Now answer my question. Are you being deliberately obtuse about anarcho-capitalism? Yes or no?
No. I mean everything I'm saying. You seem deliberately obtuse about my idea for how we can rectify things.
I reject anarchism. I find a proper role for government: enforcement of basic rights and no more.
You, an anarchist, look at the problems of government and conclude there must be nothing government can be legitimately used for. You're throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
The proof that government can be a positive thing if limited to a certain set of behaviors is contained in the nature of coercion itself.
In analyzing coercion, we find that coercion is not always wrong. We group coercion into two opposing moral categories: the initiation of coercion--known as aggression, and responsive coercion designed to stop the former--known as justice.
You, and the other anarchs, propose to dispense with justice because you can't stand aggression. But you'll find that no society can exist without the upholding of justice.
So, again, I call you and the other anarchs naive. Not as an insult, because I do respect you as a poster, but as a state of being involving these questions and considerations.
Anenome:No, empirical evidence is enough. Logic can only help us grok why human beings find governments to be necessary. It's a given that we find governments to be necessary, since we've always chosen to have them.
If you want t talk about history and empirical evidence, Anenome, the state is a relatively modern creation. The world has existed for a much longer period of time absent the state than with it.
caulds989: Anenome:No, empirical evidence is enough. Logic can only help us grok why human beings find governments to be necessary. It's a given that we find governments to be necessary, since we've always chosen to have them. If you want t talk about history and empirical evidence, Anenome, the state is a relatively modern creation. The world has existed for a much longer period of time absent the state than with it.
Well you said "...We've ALWAYS chosen to have them." But this is not the case. But even since the state's creation, what about the 1,000 year long Ancap society that was Celtic Ireland?
http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf
The English failed multiple times to conquer them...After a thousand years of trying they succeeded. I'll take that. Either live under a thug, or live in freedom. Even if a thug eventually conquers you, at least you lived without the thug for a time. If you want to truly deter the thugs, live under a thug.
caulds989: Well you said "...We've ALWAYS chosen to have them." But this is not the case. But even since the state's creation, what about the 1,000 year long Ancap society that was Celtic Ireland? http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf The English failed multiple times to conquer them...After a thousand years of trying they succeeded. I'll take that. Either live under a thug, or live in freedom. Even if a thug eventually conquers you, at least you lived without the thug for a time. If you want to truly deter the thugs, live under a thug.
Just scanning the first couple of pages of that link tells me the Irish had kings. Had Brehons who functioned as something less than kings but were part of an upper class.
How does that escape your conception of "having a government"? The Irish clearly had kings, clearly had a legal system in place, including a sophisticated legal order and tradition. Where is the abolishment of the state in a civilization replete with kings?
No, the Irish clearly had a state.
They were conquered because of the modern notion of national identity, of cultural groups forming nations, whereas the ancient world was about large cities and provinces.
Venice, for instant, never thought of itself as Italian in the ancient world. Its citizens were 'Venetians'. And it didn't want to give up its identity when the modern era came, but was nonetheless swept under the tide of nationalist sentiment and as a defense agaisnt foreign invaders.
In my idea of an ideal state, we'd return to city-based ruling jurisdictions, under a confederal government whose only job is to protect individual rights and see to national defense.
"Ireland lasted for 500 years of invasion by the British."
"But if Ireland was essentially an anarchistic (or libertarian) society, how was law and order maintained? How was justice secured? Was there not incessant warfare and rampant criminality? To answer the last of these questions first -of course there were wars and crime. Has there ever been a society statist or otherwise - without war and crime? But Irish wars were almost never on the scale known among other civilized* European peoples. Without the coercive apparatus of the State which can through taxation and conscription mobilize large amounts of arms and manpower, the Irish were unable to sustain any large scale military force in the field for any length of time. Irish wars, until the last phase of the English conquest in the 16th and 17th centuries, were pitiful brawls and cattle raids by European standards.
The contemporary Irish historian, Kathleen Hughes, has remarked that one reason why the English conquest, begun in the 12th century under Henry II and completed only under William III in the late 17th century, was so long in being achieved was the lack of a wellorganized State in Celtic Ireland. A people not habituated to a Statist conception of authority are incapable of considering a defeat in war as anything more than a temporary limitations upon their liberty. Submission to the enemy is viewed as no more than a necessary and temporary expedient to preserve one's life until opportunity for revolt and recovery of liberty presents itself. The English, of course, considered the Irish notorious in their faithlessness (they repeatedly repudiated oaths of submission and allegiance to their English conquerors); they were repeatedly characterized by English commentators as natural-born, incorrigible rebels, barbarians, savages who refused to submit to the kind of law and order offered by the English State. The Irish, unfettered by the slave mentality of people accustomed to the tyranny of the State, simply refused to surrender their liberty and libertarian ways."
An ingenious idea by all means. I could only add that it still contains too much planning: after all the host government must determine the location, extent of rights, governance system and so on.
I’d propose for a simple sale of “sovereignty rights” entitling the owner to sovereignty for a given period (say 50 years) on any piece of land he legally owns within the country (100’000 rights to one square meter could be issued by auction, for example). Whether many such sovereigns would chose to aggregate into a city or spread out, that would be for the market to settle. And of course they’d be treated as sovereign government within their area.
Anemone:Well, regardless of what I said before, here's what I think: that the absense of a state, ie: anarchism, actually means the establishment of a tribal group as the highest authority. That's a step backwards, because a tribal group substitutes loyalty to the group for loyalty to principles in the form of laws.
This is the same thing as what you said before. Somehow anarchism - the absence of a state - becomes the presence of a state. Only this time the state is tribal in nature.
Anemone:I maintain that two people can have a discussion that's more akin to a dance than a war, in a dance both sides benefit when it's over. I'm not sure your philosophy of discussion, but you seem to take a harder stance and get flustered. I don't get flustered.
I hope I make myself perfectly clear by saying the following: in no way whatsoever do I think I benefit from you continually plugging your pet project of a floating city that you'd (presumably) rule over as your own little fiefdom.
Anemone:Well, that's really not an honorable motive.
See above. I don't think your motives here have been entirely honorable to begin with.
Anemone:Again, a discussion shouldn't be about "attacks".
I meant "attack" in the sense of making logical counter-arguments. So again, why do I need a solution at all in order to make logical counter-arguments against yours? (I don't.)
Anemone:I think you're equivocating on "only one", the number of sheriff's was not essential to the discussion.
Every time you've used the word "sheriff" it's been with a singular indefinite article, i.e. "a sheriff". That implies one and only one, doesn't it? It certainly does to me. Territorial monopoly is essential to your position. If multiple independent sheriffs operate over the same area, there's no territorial monopoly, is there? So no, I'm certainly not equivocating on "only one". My use of "only one" has been consistent this entire time.
Anemone:[I'm not necessarily using the words "government" and "law" with implicit connotations of monopoly.]
Either you are or you aren't. Which is it? I'm not going to let you weasel your way out of this one, sorry.
Anemone:A territory with any entity posses that public sanction, sure.
Do you mean "a territory with any entity possessing that public sanction"? Or what?
Anemone:Of course that's assuming a republic. Power can just as easily be filled by one whom takes power without public sanction, becoming a tribal leader or dictator, as they would in your preferred scenario of anarchism.
Lovely, another strawman attack against anarchism.
You previously defined "power" as "public sanction to use coercion in enforcement of law", so you can't logically say that one can take power without public sanction.
Anemone:You're making a claim. Burden of proof is on you.
I should've added the word "alleged" before the word "claim" in my last post, because what claim did I explicitly make?
All I see is you making an explicit claim, namely that government is necessary. The burden of proof for that claim rests entirely with you, no matter how you might try to evade it.
Anemone:So, I disagree. Show us any historical support for the viability of an anarchist society. It's not like it should be hard, since all people groups began originally in a state of anarchy!
Historical support is irrelevant for logical debate, which is what I see us having. Understand yet?
Anemone:I did defend it. I point at all of recorded human history. Proved. Done.
Wrong. That in no way constitutes logical proof, which is of course what I was talking about.
Anemone:No. I mean everything I'm saying. You seem deliberately obtuse about my idea for how we can rectify things.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse about it - I just couldn't care less about your pet project. Every time you insert it into a debate is an unnecessary and unwarranted self-promotion IMHO. But as an aside, I also don't see it as a way to rectify things.
Anemone:I reject anarchism. I find a proper role for government: enforcement of basic rights and no more. You, an anarchist, look at the problems of government and conclude there must be nothing government can be legitimately used for. You're throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
I can't make sense of this until you explain to me just what you mean by "government" in the context of this thread.
Anemone:The proof that government can be a positive thing if limited to a certain set of behaviors is contained in the nature of coercion itself. In analyzing coercion, we find that coercion is not always wrong. We group coercion into two opposing moral categories: the initiation of coercion--known as aggression, and responsive coercion designed to stop the former--known as justice.
That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. Per my definition of "coercion", namely "the use or threat of physical force", I in no way consider all coercion to be morally wrong. Not all coercion is aggression - only initiatory coercion is. Haven't I explained this to you before? This is what I mean by you being deliberately obtuse.
Anemone:You, and the other anarchs, propose to dispense with justice because you can't stand aggression. But you'll find that no society can exist without the upholding of justice.
We will, will we? So you know the future? Can you prove it (i.e. logically)?
Anemone:So, again, I call you and the other anarchs naive. Not as an insult, because I do respect you as a poster, but as a state of being involving these questions and considerations.
Calling me "naive" has no effect on me whatsoever. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. To be honest, I think you maintain this misunderstanding - perhaps dishonestly - because the implication of my position is that you wouldn't be able to legitimately rule over a floating-city empire.
Autolykos:This is the same thing as what you said before. Somehow anarchism - the absence of a state - becomes the presence of a state. Only this time the state is tribal in nature.
So... any counter? Or are you accepting it. Not sure I'd call a tribal group a 'state' since the idea of a state requires law, which means written rules. A tribal group may have a leader and some structure, but it's ruled by whim of the ruler, not law. Which is a step backwards in terms of civilization.
Autolykos: I hope I make myself perfectly clear by saying the following: in no way whatsoever do I think I benefit from you continually plugging your pet project of a floating city that you'd (presumably) rule over as your own little fiefdom.
You keep presuming without asking. I do not intend to "rule over" it. Stop assuming. It's a libertarian concept, how am I going to create a libertarian system and then propose to become tyrannical over it.
And this isn't about my idea, but rather your discussion style in general, which is cantankerous. You don't want to talk about my idea, don't, I don't care.
Autolykos:See above. I don't think your motives here have been entirely honorable to begin with.
Of course, you have only assumed my motives, without proof or even asking. Right.
Autolykos: Anemone:Again, a discussion shouldn't be about "attacks". I meant "attack" in the sense of making logical counter-arguments.
I meant "attack" in the sense of making logical counter-arguments.
That's my point, you're using the metaphor of warfare as your model of discussion.
Autolykos:Every time you've used the word "sheriff" it's been with a singular indefinite article, i.e. "a sheriff". That implies one and only one, doesn't it?
Why don't you start asking instead of assuming based on implications. It is not a reasonable inference given our discussion. Nowhere did I say "only one", the context is that of a western border town which would have a sheriff. Obviously a larger territory would have more than one law-man.
Autolykos:It certainly does to me. Territorial monopoly is essential to your position.
See, this is where you make a mistake. Because law by its nature has a territorial monopoly. You cannot get around that. You can only mitigate it. I've designed my system to mitigate it. If this is your big problem with my proposed society, it's not going to change. And you may as well get mad at water for being wet, because it is the nature of the beast.
Autolykos:If multiple independent sheriffs operate over the same area, there's no territorial monopoly, is there? So no, I'm certainly not equivocating on "only one". My use of "only one" has been consistent this entire time.
It's a monopoly of LAW, not of its enforcement. So, you lose me again.
Autolykos: Anemone:[I'm not necessarily using the words "government" and "law" with implicit connotations of monopoly.] Either you are or you aren't. Which is it? I'm not going to let you weasel your way out of this one, sorry.
It's a confederal society. So, is there a monopoly when you can freely get out from under an jurisdiction at will, and leave or join the confed at will? I'm looking at monopoly in terms of citizen-capture. If a legal system cannot capture systems and prevent them from leaving their jurisdiction, then they do not have a monopoly on those citizens. So, not, no monopoly. However, if you're asking whether a set body of law will have a legal monopoly within its jurisdiction, then yes, because there is no alternative, and you cannot propose one either.
Don't say competing governments, because that cannot work and will devolve into tribal groups.
Autolykos: Anemone:A territory with any entity posses that public sanction, sure. Do you mean "a territory with any entity possessing that public sanction"? Or what?
Meaning an actual institution.
Autolykos: Anemone:Of course that's assuming a republic. Power can just as easily be filled by one whom takes power without public sanction, becoming a tribal leader or dictator, as they would in your preferred scenario of anarchism. Lovely, another strawman attack against anarchism.
It's always a strawman when you don't like the implications :P But I don't hear a counter-argument.
Autolykos:You previously defined "power" as "public sanction to use coercion in enforcement of law", so you can't logically say that one can take power without public sanction.
Of course I can. I'm refining. Initially I defined power in a republic. Then I realized that your anarchist scenario allows for dictators to take over and broadened the definition to include the method by which they take power--without public sanction and by coercion.
Autolykos:All I see is you making an explicit claim, namely that government is necessary. The burden of proof for that claim rests entirely with you, no matter how you might try to evade it.
That's fine. I'm perfectly willing to justify my conclusions. However, you're making claims about anarchy that you're not supporting as well.
Autolykos: Anemone:So, I disagree. Show us any historical support for the viability of an anarchist society. It's not like it should be hard, since all people groups began originally in a state of anarchy! Historical support is irrelevant for logical debate, which is what I see us having. Understand yet?
I believe induction is a valid logical tool. And via induction one speaks in terms of likelihoods. In the inductive method, past evidence is logically admissible. Don't act as if deduction were the world's only logical tool, or are you that naive about logical evidence. Historical proof is not only not irrelevant, it's the heart of the issue. In every instance of historical anarchist conditions, the result has been chaos, not stability.
Autolykos:I'm not being deliberately obtuse about it - I just couldn't care less about your pet project. Every time you insert it into a debate is an unnecessary and unwarranted self-promotion IMHO. But as an aside, I also don't see it as a way to rectify things.
How is it self-promotion when I'm trying to discover the best way to build an anarchist society. Wouldn't I have to be gaining something for it to be self-promotion. Let's say I had a book for sale that I plugged in every post. THAT would be self-promotion. Or if I urged people to go to some website I owned. That would be self-promotion. All I'm interested is how anyone could make the best actual libertarian society. This is a libertarian website, last I checked. Seems to me most everyone here should be keenly interested in how to actualize their beliefs.
Are you just a committed anarchist, or are you a libertarian? Actualizing anarchist beliefs would show you the error of your ways. I intend to actualize my beliefs in the real world, maybe you think that offensive because it is audacious. Maybe you don't have the courage to actualize your beliefs. I dunno. Audacious or not, I'm doing it.
Autolykos: Anemone:I reject anarchism. I find a proper role for government: enforcement of basic rights and no more. You, an anarchist, look at the problems of government and conclude there must be nothing government can be legitimately used for. You're throwing the baby out with the bath-water. I can't make sense of this until you explain to me just what you mean by "government" in the context of this thread.
The reason we're talking about this in this thread is because my concept for an actualized libertarian society is built around charter cities, each competing for citizens, and with citizens empowered to subscribe to jurisdictions at will. Government would exist along essentialist lines (my term), meaning only that which cannot be done without and still call it a government. I'm open to negotiation and discussion on what those essential things may be.
The crux of your argument with me up to this point has been that you don't think anything is essential to a free capitalist society. However, you want capitalism while denying what makes it possible: the guarantee of individual rights. In an anarchist society you have only the rights you can take for yourself, and the strong man takes what he likes and the weak man has zero non-physical recourse. Thus, anarchism is tribalism and together the constitute the complete break-down of civilization, not its establishment.
In a civilized society, people confer their right to recourse to a dispassionate 3rd party legal process, known as a court. So, in a civil society, when the strong man takes something from the weak man, the weak man sues him. Thus, intertribal war doesn't break out, like it would in an anarchist society.
The essentials of government: objective law, national defense, courts of las resort (civil and criminal). That's it. My schema is a unique mix of those, unique structure, and many structures are possible.
Autolykos: Anemone:The proof that government can be a positive thing if limited to a certain set of behaviors is contained in the nature of coercion itself. In analyzing coercion, we find that coercion is not always wrong. We group coercion into two opposing moral categories: the initiation of coercion--known as aggression, and responsive coercion designed to stop the former--known as justice. That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. Per my definition of "coercion", namely "the use or threat of physical force", I in no way consider all coercion to be morally wrong. Not all coercion is aggression - only initiatory coercion is. Haven't I explained this to you before? This is what I mean by you being deliberately obtuse.
Uh, that's exactly what I said, dude -_- I said not all coercion is wrong. It's in that paragraph. I said aggression was wrong and explained responsive coercion which is the moral version, which I call administration of justice. I'll give you a pass on this one cause it seems you just read too fast. Read it again, then address my comment.
You, as an anarchist, want to get rid of the state for its aggression. You don't believe a state can be limited to only moral forms of coercion. This latter should be the crux of our discussion.
Autolykos: Anemone:You, and the other anarchs, propose to dispense with justice because you can't stand aggression. But you'll find that no society can exist without the upholding of justice. We will, will we? So you know the future? Can you prove it (i.e. logically)?
It is proved historically, and I can make the statement inductively that it's a likelihood I consider so likely as to be virtually a certainty. Considering that I have historical examples of anarchism destroying societies and you have no historical counter showing positive and successful anarchistic societies, which is more likely? If you deny my point, aren't you also "predicting the future", because absent doing that you would have to maintain an agnostic viewpoint, that is if you relied purely on deduction. I dunno, maybe you do think that way. But it would be foolish.
Autolykos: Anemone:So, again, I call you and the other anarchs naive. Not as an insult, because I do respect you as a poster, but as a state of being involving these questions and considerations. Calling me "naive" has no effect on me whatsoever. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. To be honest, I think you maintain this misunderstanding - perhaps dishonestly - because the implication of my position is that you wouldn't be able to legitimately rule over a floating-city empire.
A. I don't want to rule. I want to create a new way of living and set it loose on the world.
B. Please explain your position. You make no reference to it here except in general terms so I have no idea what you're referring to.
I would sum our past arguments as two things:
1. You don't accept that a body of law can limit a government to only responsive coercion--ie: justice, forbidding it from aggression.
2. You don't think there's anything logical in my essentialist position of things the state cannot do without and still be called a state.
3. You think individual rights best guarantor is a society free of any government institution at all and think a large scale society is possible without any such institutions.
4. You pick nits largely irrelevant to the issue and are unwilling to extend the benefit of the doubt. You're a bit of a prickly poster because of this. It's a shame, because you seem to have a fine mind but discussing stuff with you is more chore than fun :\ I don't see why it shouldn't be fun to talk about actualizing our beliefs, but you're insistent on being antagonistic.
Anemone:So... any counter? Or are you accepting it.
Did I not provide a counter-argument? It does not logically follow for the absence of a state to still be a state, does it? Of course it doesn't. That's my counter. Come on.
Anemone:Not sure I'd call a tribal group a 'state' since the idea of a state requires law, which means written rules. A tribal group may have a leader and some structure, but it's ruled by whim of the ruler, not law. Which is a step backwards in terms of civilization.
In that case, we may have different definitions of the word "state". Perhaps you'd like to explicitly lay out your own definition - or have you done so already somewhere? Is it the same as your definition of "government"?
Anemone:You keep presuming without asking. I do not intend to "rule over" it. Stop assuming. It's a libertarian concept, how am I going to create a libertarian system and then propose to become tyrannical over it. And this isn't about my idea, but rather your discussion style in general, which is cantankerous. You don't want to talk about my idea, don't, I don't care.
I couldn't care less whether you think my "discussion style in general" is "cantankerous". Understand? But guess what. I'm going to continue to assume that you're more interested in ruling over your libertarian system (you do think it's yours after all, don't you?) than just how libertarian it actually is. I have no idea why you'd continue plugging your idea unless you're looking for people on here to support it.
Anemone:Of course, you have only assumed my motives, without proof or even asking. Right.
... And you didn't do the same about my motives? Right. But see, I do think there's evidence for the motives I ascribe to you. I use the word "evidence" here instead of "proof" because there is the possibility that I'm wrong.
Anemone:That's my point, you're using the metaphor of warfare as your model of discussion.
The phrase "attacking one's arguments" wasn't coined by me, you know. But in no way am I going to adopt your own apparent model of discussion, which seems to be one of negotiation and give-and-take. No thank you. Principles IMHO are not subject to negotiation. If you want to call that "warlike", go right ahead - it won't affect me in the slightest.
Anemone:Why don't you start asking instead of assuming based on implications. It is not a reasonable inference given our discussion. Nowhere did I say "only one", the context is that of a western border town which would have a sheriff. Obviously a larger territory would have more than one law-man.
See, you just did it again. "A sheriff". That implies one, doesn't it? Yes or no? If it didn't imply one, why would you use the singular indefinite article? And this single sheriff would have a territorial monopoly, yes? I don't think I need to ask - it seems to be all laid out for me. You just don't like the fact that I keep holding you to what you say.
Anemone:See, this is where you make a mistake. Because law by its nature has a territorial monopoly. You cannot get around that. You can only mitigate it. I've designed my system to mitigate it. If this is your big problem with my proposed society, it's not going to change. And you may as well get mad at water for being wet, because it is the nature of the beast.
Asserting a thing doesn't prove it. Perhaps you'd like to lay out a deductive proof for how law "by its nature" has a territorial monopoly. Classical syllogistic form would be preferred. Note that this will require you to define "law", among other things.
Anemone:It's a monopoly of LAW, not of its enforcement. So, you lose me again.
And how do you define "law"? You still haven't answered that question.
Anemone:It's a confederal society. So, is there a monopoly when you can freely get out from under an jurisdiction at will, and leave or join the confed at will? I'm looking at monopoly in terms of citizen-capture. If a legal system cannot capture systems and prevent them from leaving their jurisdiction, then they do not have a monopoly on those citizens. So, not, no monopoly. However, if you're asking whether a set body of law will have a legal monopoly within its jurisdiction, then yes, because there is no alternative, and you cannot propose one either. Don't say competing governments, because that cannot work and will devolve into tribal groups.
Excuse me, but I consider you to have no authority whatsoever to tell me what to do and not do. So I will say whatever I feel like saying, thank you very much. You are powerless to stop me, understand? I sure hope so.
Anemone:Meaning an actual institution.
And that institution possesses public sanction? Yes or no?
Anemone:It's always a strawman when you don't like the implications :P But I don't hear a counter-argument.
You haven't proven the implications, so it's not a question of me liking them or disliking them. I don't need to present a counter-argument in order for you to prove them.
Anemone:Of course I can. I'm refining. Initially I defined power in a republic. Then I realized that your anarchist scenario allows for dictators to take over and broadened the definition to include the method by which they take power--without public sanction and by coercion.
You just admitted to equivocating over the word "power". You do understand that equivocation is a logical fallacy, don't you?
Anemone:That's fine. I'm perfectly willing to justify my conclusions. However, you're making claims about anarchy that you're not supporting as well.
What claims do you think I'm making? Regardless, I'm waiting on you to prove (i.e. logically, i.e. deductively) that government is necessary.
Anemone:I believe induction is a valid logical tool. And via induction one speaks in terms of likelihoods. In the inductive method, past evidence is logically admissible. Don't act as if deduction were the world's only logical tool, or are you that naive about logical evidence. Historical proof is not only not irrelevant, it's the heart of the issue. In every instance of historical anarchist conditions, the result has been chaos, not stability.
The phrase "government is necessary" says nothing about likelihoods - it's a statement of certainty. If you had said "I think government will be necessary for the forseeable future", I wouldn't be harping on you about deductive proof. But that's not what you said. Now I'll ask you this: do you take "government is necessary" to be a conclusion or a premise? I don't think I asked you that before, and I've been assuming that you take it to be a conclusion, but I could be wrong. If you simply take it as a premise, then I'll simply reject it as such. Something tells me, though, that you don't take it as a premise.
Anemone:How is it self-promotion when I'm trying to discover the best way to build an anarchist society.
I don't see you trying to discover anything. You seem to believe you have it all figured out already, and all you're trying to do is gain followers.
Anemone:Wouldn't I have to be gaining something for it to be self-promotion. Let's say I had a book for sale that I plugged in every post. THAT would be self-promotion. Or if I urged people to go to some website I owned. That would be self-promotion. All I'm interested is how anyone could make the best actual libertarian society. This is a libertarian website, last I checked. Seems to me most everyone here should be keenly interested in how to actualize their beliefs.
Claiming things like "government is necessary" has nothing to do with actualization.
Anemone:Are you just a committed anarchist, or are you a libertarian? Actualizing anarchist beliefs would show you the error of your ways. I intend to actualize my beliefs in the real world, maybe you think that offensive because it is audacious. Maybe you don't have the courage to actualize your beliefs. I dunno. Audacious or not, I'm doing it.
Again, I think this is irrelevant - and worse, a red herring. Sorry but I'm not biting.
Anemone:The reason we're talking about this in this thread is because my concept for an actualized libertarian society is built around charter cities, each competing for citizens, and with citizens empowered to subscribe to jurisdictions at will. Government would exist along essentialist lines (my term), meaning only that which cannot be done without and still call it a government. I'm open to negotiation and discussion on what those essential things may be.
No, the reason I've been going back and forth with you in this thread is because you made logically positive claims against anarchism. I've asked you to prove those claims, and instead of even trying to do so in a logically deductive manner (which is required for logically positive claims), you've done everything else but that. If you expect to wear me down to the point that I stop calling you out on this, I think you're gravely mistaken.
The notion that you expect me to negotiate with you on the essential features of government is so ridiculous to me that I can only consider it yet another red herring. Still not biting.
Anemone:The crux of your argument with me up to this point has been that you don't think anything is essential to a free capitalist society. However, you want capitalism while denying what makes it possible: the guarantee of individual rights. In an anarchist society you have only the rights you can take for yourself, and the strong man takes what he likes and the weak man has zero non-physical recourse. Thus, anarchism is tribalism and together the constitute the complete break-down of civilization, not its establishment.
To my knowledge, I've presented no positive claims (let alone arguments) to you. I've simply questioned your positive claims. Here you present an other positive claim: "In an anarchist society you have only the rights you can take for yourself, and the strong man takes what he likes and the weak man has zero non-physical recourse." The burden of proof once again rests with you to prove that this must always be the case (as that's how you've implicitly phrased the claim).
Anemone:In a civilized society, people confer their right to recourse to a dispassionate 3rd party legal process, known as a court. So, in a civil society, when the strong man takes something from the weak man, the weak man sues him. Thus, intertribal war doesn't break out, like it would in an anarchist society. The essentials of government: objective law, national defense, courts of las resort (civil and criminal). That's it. My schema is a unique mix of those, unique structure, and many structures are possible.
So perhaps you'd like to also prove your (implicit) positive claim that anarchism is not and cannot be civilized.
Anemone:Uh, that's exactly what I said, dude -_- I said not all coercion is wrong. It's in that paragraph. I said aggression was wrong and explained responsive coercion which is the moral version, which I call administration of justice. I'll give you a pass on this one cause it seems you just read too fast. Read it again, then address my comment.
Did you or did you not accuse anarchists, however implicitly, of thinking that all coercion is wrong? Hmm? Because it sure looked to me like you did.
I don't need a "pass" from you, "dude". You know that already.
Anemone:You, as an anarchist, want to get rid of the state for its aggression. You don't believe a state can be limited to only moral forms of coercion. This latter should be the crux of our discussion.
The crux of our discussion, as I see it, is your refusal to provide logically deductive proofs for your logically positive claims.
Anemone:It is proved historically, and I can make the statement inductively that it's a likelihood I consider so likely as to be virtually a certainty.
So then go ahead, make the inductive statement. Surely you're not afraid to lay it out for me explicitly, in a rigorous fashion.
Anemone:Considering that I have historical examples of anarchism destroying societies and you have no historical counter showing positive and successful anarchistic societies, which is more likely? If you deny my point, aren't you also "predicting the future", because absent doing that you would have to maintain an agnostic viewpoint, that is if you relied purely on deduction. I dunno, maybe you do think that way. But it would be foolish.
Of course I have an agnostic viewpoint about the future, because the future is inherently uncertain. Agnosticism is the only logically valid viewpoint about the future. I think you're the foolish one for claiming that you know the unknowable. Do you get it yet?
Anemone:A. I don't want to rule. I want to create a new way of living and set it loose on the world.
I don't believe you.
Anemone:B. Please explain your position. You make no reference to it here except in general terms so I have no idea what you're referring to.
Explaining my position is not necessary for you to prove, in a logically deductive manner, the logically positive claims that you've made.
Anemone:I would sum our past arguments as two things:
And you proceed to list four things...
Anemone:1. You don't accept that a body of law can limit a government to only responsive coercion--ie: justice, forbidding it from aggression.
I'd say there's no way that a body of law can guarantee for all time a limit on government to only responsive coercion. Note that that doesn't embody a logically positive claim.
Anemone:2. You don't think there's anything logical in my essentialist position of things the state cannot do without and still be called a state.
Because I'm still not sure just what exactly you call a "state".
Anemone:3. You think individual rights best guarantor is a society free of any government institution at all and think a large scale society is possible without any such institutions.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what to make of this, because your definitions for things like "individual rights", "government", and "large scale society" seem to be all over the map.
Anemone:4. You pick nits largely irrelevant to the issue and are unwilling to extend the benefit of the doubt. You're a bit of a prickly poster because of this. It's a shame, because you seem to have a fine mind but discussing stuff with you is more chore than fun :\ I don't see why it shouldn't be fun to talk about actualizing our beliefs, but you're insistent on being antagonistic.
I don't care how much you complain about it not being "fun" to discuss stuff. I don't even consider myself to be discussing anything with you. What I'm doing (or trying to do, at any rate) is debating. When I see you make sleight-of-hand strawman claims against anarchism, I will challenge you on them. And I won't stop.
Autolykos:It does not logically follow for the absence of a state to still be a state, does it? Of course it doesn't. That's my counter. Come on.
Problem is, I'm not the one who called it a state--you did. I said anarchism results in a condition of tribalism. You haven't disagreed yet, you simply called it a state by default and dismissed it.
Autolykos: In that case, we may have different definitions of the word "state". Perhaps you'd like to explicitly lay out your own definition - or have you done so already somewhere? Is it the same as your definition of "government"?
I would say a tribal group has no government, meaning no legislators, no rule of law, no institutions of administration. If you're defining state as "any place that's ruled by anything or anybody" then please explain how the strong-man in an anarchistic society is not a de-facto ruler, and therefore by your own definition a de-facto state.
Autolykos:I'm going to continue to assume that you're more interested in ruling over your libertarian system
Just to annoy me, I see how it is. Again, you're arguing in bad faith.
Autolykos:(you do think it's yours after all, don't you?)
Let's see, it's a concept I came up with. So, yeah, the idea is mine. Why you insist in conflating my ownership of the idea of the system with a desire to rule tyrannically over the idea's actualization is beyond me. Legally, I have a copyright on the idea. I know I told you I began that idea as part of a thought experiment for a novel.
Autolykos:I have no idea why you'd continue plugging your idea unless you're looking for people on here to support it.
My idea is not fully formed. I "plug" it because I want to discuss it and find potential problems with it, refinements of it. Actually, the process of discussing it has paid off big time in terms of refining the idea. Only not in my discussions with you, since you're more interested in a philosophic commitment to anarchism than min-cap.
Autolykos:The phrase "attacking one's arguments" wasn't coined by me, you know. But in no way am I going to adopt your own apparent model of discussion, which seems to be one of negotiation and give-and-take. No thank you. Principles IMHO are not subject to negotiation. If you want to call that "warlike", go right ahead - it won't affect me in the slightest.
There you go assuming again and extrapolating erroneously. You've invented this idea of discussion as negotiation. I never intimated that, nor implied that. The metaphor of a discussion as a dance mean both people are uplifted by the discussion, rather than a war where both are damaged by it. I am philosophically against an idea of discussion as a negotiation of principles--which you should have given me the benefit of the doubt for since I'm a libertarian.
Autolykos:Excuse me, but I consider you to have no authority whatsoever to tell me what to do and not do. So I will say whatever I feel like saying, thank you very much. You are powerless to stop me, understand? I sure hope so.
Haha, you're ridiculous man. I'm tired of the ratio of unproductive discussion to productive discussion that discussing anything with you results in :\
Autolykos:You just admitted to equivocating over the word "power". You do understand that equivocation is a logical fallacy, don't you?
Again. You're silly. So, no one can broaden a definition when talking to you. They must be 100% sure of everything the instant they write anything--even when that writing is exploratory.
Autolykos: Anemone:How is it self-promotion when I'm trying to discover the best way to build an anarchist society. I don't see you trying to discover anything.
I don't see you trying to discover anything.
If I wasn't, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Autolykos:Again, I think this is irrelevant - and worse, a red herring. Sorry but I'm not biting.
Lol, you continually refuse to put any skin in the game. It's funny, really :) Well, I'm done being trolled.
Autolykos:Did you or did you not accuse anarchists, however implicitly, of thinking that all coercion is wrong? Hmm? Because it sure looked to me like you did.
Nope. That would be silly. I merely said that coercion has moral usages, thus attacking the anarchist claim that government aggresses and should be done away with entirely. If the gov can use coercion in a moral way, and could be thus limited, it would be a good thing.
Autolykos: The crux of our discussion, as I see it, is your refusal to provide logically deductive proofs for your logically positive claims.
No, the crux of our argument is I want to discuss principles and you demand "logical proof" for every conclusion you don't like. You have no other mode of discussion apparently.
Autolykos:Of course I have an agnostic viewpoint about the future, because the future is inherently uncertain.
Me: The sun will come up tomorrow (implied inductive statement based on past evidence and known physics).
You: That's a statement about the future impossible to predict! You can't possibly know that!!!
Me: Dude, chill.
You: You can't tell me to chill!!!! *rageface*
Autolykos:Agnosticism is the only logically valid viewpoint about the future.
From a deductive point of view, you're correct. However, not from an inductive view.
Autolykos:I think you're the foolish one for claiming that you know the unknowable. Do you get it yet?
Lol.
Autolykos: Anemone:A. I don't want to rule. I want to create a new way of living and set it loose on the world. I don't believe you.
Wow, you're a real jerk, lol.
Autolykos:Explaining my position is not necessary for you to prove, in a logically deductive manner, the logically positive claims that you've made.
That may be true, but you're only interested in destroying, in skepticism, and have nothing positive to give back. Why should I bother.
Autolykos: Anemone:1. You don't accept that a body of law can limit a government to only responsive coercion--ie: justice, forbidding it from aggression. I'd say there's no way that a body of law can guarantee for all time a limit on government to only responsive coercion. Note that that doesn't embody a logically positive claim.
Omg, you're actually saying something. Hallelelujah. The funny thing is I agree, which I why I advocate both a confederal government and a right of political separation via charter cities. You've never actually gotten to the point of considering those two ideas together in our discussions and how that undermines any notion of government monopoly.
Anemone:Problem is, I'm not the one who called it a state--you did. I said anarchism results in a condition of tribalism. You haven't disagreed yet, you simply called it a state by default and dismissed it.
You wrote earlier: "As opposed to what, anarchism? You're only going to have a state replace a state." Do you renounce that or not?
Anemone:I would say a tribal group has no government, meaning no legislators, no rule of law, no institutions of administration. If you're defining state as "any place that's ruled by anything or anybody" then please explain how the strong-man in an anarchistic society is not a de-facto ruler, and therefore by your own definition a de-facto state.
I define "state" as "a territorial monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion". Note that that definition doesn't imply nor require legislators/legislation or any other particular/special institutions. With that said, you once again make an implicit positive claim - that anarchistic society will necessarily be rule by one or more "strong-men" (which implies that you don't define "anarchistic society" as "society without the state", at least using my definition of "state").
Anemone:Just to annoy me, I see how it is. Again, you're arguing in bad faith.
If by "arguing in bad faith" you mean "arguing under suspicion of your motives", then yes you're correct.
Anemone:Let's see, it's a concept I came up with. So, yeah, the idea is mine. Why you insist in conflating my ownership of the idea of the system with a desire to rule tyrannically over the idea's actualization is beyond me. Legally, I have a copyright on the idea. I know I told you I began that idea as part of a thought experiment for a novel.
Thank you for the confirmation.
Anemone:My idea is not fully formed. I "plug" it because I want to discuss it and find potential problems with it, refinements of it. Actually, the process of discussing it has paid off big time in terms of refining the idea. Only not in my discussions with you, since you're more interested in a philosophic commitment to anarchism than min-cap.
That's right. Why should I care about "min-cap" except to refute it? Hmm?
Anemone:There you go assuming again and extrapolating erroneously. You've invented this idea of discussion as negotiation. I never intimated that, nor implied that. The metaphor of a discussion as a dance mean both people are uplifted by the discussion, rather than a war where both are damaged by it. I am philosophically against an idea of discussion as a negotiation of principles--which you should have given me the benefit of the doubt for since I'm a libertarian.
Well you certainly seem (to me) to use the language of negotiation quite often in your posts. You seem to expect us to reach some sort of compromise. That won't happen, because I won't let it. My focus is entirely on refuting your statist principles. I'm not concerned in the least with "improving" your proposed statist system. Have I made myself clear?
Anemone:Haha, you're ridiculous man. I'm tired of the ratio of unproductive discussion to productive discussion that discussing anything with you results in :\
I don't care. I'm going to continue to focus on refuting your statism.
Anemone:Again. You're silly. So, no one can broaden a definition when talking to you. They must be 100% sure of everything the instant they write anything--even when that writing is exploratory.
I consider it a dishonest tactic to change the definition one's using for a word without explicitly announcing it. As I see it, you've done that on at least one occasion. And I accept your implicit concession that you did, in fact, equivocate over the word "power".
Anemone:If I wasn't, I wouldn't be talking about it.
What discovery is involved in your strawman claims against anarchism?
Anemone:Lol, you continually refuse to put any skin in the game. It's funny, really :) Well, I'm done being trolled.
Except I'm not trolling you. I have skin in the game of refuting your statism. I have skin in the game of challenging your strawman claims against anarchism. If that's not the game you want to play, then I suggest not writing such things. So you can be done all you want, but I'm not done. I'm going to continue to challenge your strawman claims against anarchism. I'm going to continue to demand that you provide logically deductive proofs for your claims.
Anemone:Nope. That would be silly. I merely said that coercion has moral usages, thus attacking the anarchist claim that government aggresses and should be done away with entirely. If the gov can use coercion in a moral way, and could be thus limited, it would be a good thing.
A monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion can only be maintained by some amount of aggression.
Anemone:No, the crux of our argument is I want to discuss principles and you demand "logical proof" for every conclusion you don't like. You have no other mode of discussion apparently.
So I'm supposed to just lay down and agree with you when you spout nonsense like "government is necessary" and launch strawman attacks against anarchism? Really? I hope you're joking here.
Anemone:Me: The sun will come up tomorrow (implied inductive statement based on past evidence and known physics). You: That's a statement about the future impossible to predict! You can't possibly know that!!! Me: Dude, chill. You: You can't tell me to chill!!!! *rageface*
I'm not intimidated in the slightest by your mockery. Saying "the sun will come up tomorrow" in no way indicates to me an implied inductive statement. Rather, it indicates to me a positive claim implying knowledge about the future, which is impossible. If you want me to understand that you're talking about induction, then I suggest you be explicit about it.
Anemone:From a deductive point of view, you're correct. However, not from an inductive view.
Correctness (in the logical sense, of course) doesn't apply to induction. As Wikipedia states, "Inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion be false, even where all of the premises are true."
Anemone:Lol.
I still think you're the foolish one for claiming that you know the unknowable.
Anemone:Wow, you're a real jerk, lol.
I don't care. I still don't believe you.
Anemone:That may be true, but you're only interested in destroying, in skepticism, and have nothing positive to give back. Why should I bother.
See, this is exactly why I accuse you of treating our discourse as a negotiation. I'm not obligated to "give anything back". Understand?
If by "destroying" you mean "refuting", then yes, I'm only interested in destroying.
Anemone:Omg, you're actually saying something. Hallelelujah.
I've been saying lots of things. You just haven't been listening.
Anemone:The funny thing is I agree, which I why I advocate both a confederal government and a right of political separation via charter cities. You've never actually gotten to the point of considering those two ideas together in our discussions and how that undermines any notion of government monopoly.
If you agree, then why do you apparently assert the contrary proposition - that it is possible for a body of law to guarantee for all time a limit on government to only responsive coercion?
I've asked you this before, but I'll ask you again to put it on record in this thread: do you accept secession of any and all private property? Yes or no?
But none of this has anything really to do with your assertion that government is necessary (a gnomic proposition) or your strawman claims against anarchism. I'm not going to let go of those.
Autolykos:A monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion can only be maintained by some amount of aggression.
Prove it.
Autolykos:Saying "the sun will come up tomorrow" in no way indicates to me an implied inductive statement.
It's the only way that statement can be understood. The hell is wrong with you.
Autolykos:I still think you're the foolish one for claiming that you know the unknowable.
Lol, the sun will come up tomorrow. And I'll still be right when it does. Not because I know the future, because obviously no one does (which is why it's obviously an implied inductive statement).
Autolykos:I'm not obligated to "give anything back". Understand?
By that I don't mean give an inch on your principles. But rather discuss your vision of an ideal society and its actualization. That would be a fun exchange of ideas. You don't want an exchange, you offer only an attack.
Autolykos:If you agree, then why do you apparently assert the contrary proposition - that it is possible for a body of law to guarantee for all time a limit on government to only responsive coercion?
I don't assert that. Again, for like the third or fourth time now, I suggest that a political right of separation and individual choice of jurisdiction means that any citizen can escape a jurisdiction that began to move into aggression, thus kneecapping all attempts at ramping up government power, and ensuring that only responsive coercion is used. A society without jurisdictional citizen-capture does not have a monopoly on citizens, though it by nature must have a jurisdictional monopoly on law (two bodies of law cannot rule the same jurisdiction--even though you question that, it's obvious with about three seconds of thought).
Autolykos:I've asked you this before, but I'll ask you again to put it on record in this thread: do you accept secession of any and all private property? Yes or no?
Yes, I do. Which is why, in my proposal, you can choose immediately to leave a jurisdiction and take all of your property with you, and why there's a confederal government, not a federal one (while acknowleding that I've used 'federal' in the past; another one of those refinements). For anti-citizen capture to be effective you must be able to secede totally.
In fact, calling it a right to secession is a much better term than what I've been using, the so-called "political separation" so I'll use that from now. Wow, I actually got something out of discussing something with you, I am in shock.
Autolykos:But none of this has anything really to do with your assertion that government is necessary (a gnomic proposition) or your strawman claims against anarchism. I'm not going to let go of those.
Let's do a quick thought experiment. If I was able to guarantee that a state would not become an aggressor--let's just hold that constant--would you agree that a state limited to responsive coercion would be a good thing? Let's see if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever, or where the exact crux of your opposition is. Because, I don't believe you'll be able to say it is. And that means you simply hate any idea of the state, perhaps any authority, and it's not really about principle for you. But I'll give you a chance to surprise me.
Anemone:Prove it.
Not until you try proving to me - in a logically deductive sense, of course - that government is necessary.
Anemone:It's the only way that statement can be understood. The hell is wrong with you.
In my opinion, nothing is wrong with me. "The sun will come up tomorrow" is a claim of necessity about the future. If you simply think the sun will come up tomorrow, then you'd say "I think the sun will come up tomorrow". Keep in mind that I'm not talking in the context of loose everyday language here - I'm talking in the context of logical debate.
Anemone:Lol, the sun will come up tomorrow. And I'll still be right when it does. Not because I know the future, because obviously no one does (which is why it's obviously an implied inductive statement).
You're contradicting yourself there. You're implying certainty about the future, and then turning right around and saying there's no certainty about the future. It can't be both certain and uncertain.
Anemone:By that I don't mean give an inch on your principles. But rather discuss your vision of an ideal society and its actualization. That would be a fun exchange of ideas. You don't want an exchange, you offer only an attack.
As I've already stated, I'm not interested in your idea of a "fun exchange of ideas". I'm interested in refuting your statism. You understand this, I think, and that's why you're trying to dance around it. You don't want your position to be weakened. Well, too bad, so sad.
Anemone:I don't assert that. Again, for like the third or fourth time now, I suggest that a political right of separation and individual choice of jurisdiction means that any citizen can escape a jurisdiction that began to move into aggression, thus kneecapping all attempts at ramping up government power, and ensuring that only responsive coercion is used. A society without jurisdictional citizen-capture does not have a monopoly on citizens, though it by nature must have a jurisdictional monopoly on law (two bodies of law cannot rule the same jurisdiction--even though you question that, it's obvious with about three seconds of thought).
Earlier you wrote, "You don't believe a state can be limited to only moral forms of coercion." Since you haven't provided me your own definition of "state", I'll insert mine there: "You don't believe a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion can be limited to only moral forms of coercion." That's right. By definition, it isn't limited to what I would call "moral forms of coercion", as I consider the coercion it must use to maintain its monopoly to be immoral. But anyway, what you said earlier sure sounds to me like you believe the converse, i.e. you believe that a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion can be limited to only moral forms of coercion. Notwithstanding your alternative definition of "state" (which you have yet to offer), this means to me one of two things: either you think the coercion that it must use to maintain its monopoly is moral, in which case we're simply at a moral impasse; or you don't think a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion must use coercion to maintain its monopoly.
Now then, regarding your notion of "political right of separation and individual choice of jurisdiction", that means people can escape a jurisdiction without having to move, right?
Anemone:Yes, I do. Which is why, in my proposal, you can choose immediately to leave a jurisdiction and take all of your property with you, and why there's a confederal government, not a federal one (while acknowleding that I've used 'federal' in the past; another one of those refinements). [Emphasis added.]
You can't really take land and other immovable property with you.
Anemone:For anti-citizen capture to be effective you must be able to secede totally.
What in the world do you mean by "anti-citizen capture"? You keep introducing new terms without explaining what they mean.
Anemone:In fact, calling it a right to secession is a much better term than what I've been using, the so-called "political separation" so I'll use that from now. Wow, I actually got something out of discussing something with you, I am in shock.
... Okay. I feel no different.
Anemone:Let's do a quick thought experiment. If I was able to guarantee that a state would not become an aggressor--let's just hold that constant--would you agree that a state limited to responsive coercion would be a good thing? Let's see if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever, or where the exact crux of your opposition is. Because, I don't believe you'll be able to say it is. And that means you simply hate any idea of the state, perhaps any authority, and it's not really about principle for you. But I'll give you a chance to surprise me.
How magnanimous of you.
I'm not going to hold that guarantee constant, because a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion must use coercion to maintain that monopoly - coercion that I consider to be aggressive.
By the way, it's this kind of thing which keeps leading me to believe that you view our discourse as some kind of negotiation.
Autolykos, I'm surprised you've left the kid gloves on as long as you have, considering such gems as these:
Anenome: I would say a tribal group has no government, meaning no legislators, no rule of law, no institutions of administration.
I would say a tribal group has no government, meaning no legislators, no rule of law, no institutions of administration.
Anenome: So... any counter? Or are you accepting it. Not sure I'd call a tribal group a 'state' since the idea of a state requires law, which means written rules. A tribal group may have a leader and some structure, but it's ruled by whim of the ruler, not law. Which is a step backwards in terms of civilization.
Anenome: In analyzing coercion, we find that coercion is not always wrong. We group coercion into two opposing moral categories: the initiation of coercion--known as aggression, and responsive coercion designed to stop the former--known as justice. You, and the other anarchs, propose to dispense with justice because you can't stand aggression. But you'll find that no society can exist without the upholding of justice.
@Anenome
Anarchy is not the same as the absense of law. The Rothbardians on this forum advocate the NAP as the law. Others, such as myself, advocate common law. Statutory law, which is derived from governments, is what you have been referring to. But, as I just stated, it is not the only form of law. And predictably (for some), I'm going to refer you to these two threads for further reading:
By Clayton:
A Praxeological Account of Law
What Law Is
Clayton makes my point for me. How do you answer him here:
In a stateless society, it appears that an aggressor would have no incentive to seek non-violent resolution of a dispute with his victim. After all, an aggressor usually will not attack unless he reasonably believes he can get away with the attack in the first place. That is, he has already calculated that he can win a martial contest with the victim. Therefore, the victim must be able to present a sufficient threat to the accused in order to motivate the aggressor to come to court. That is, both parties must have an incentive to seek a peaceful settlement of the matter. Law and security, then, are inseparable. You cannot have real rights without the capacity to present a real threat to aggressors who refuse peaceful settlement of disputes. In other words, if you steal my television, and I send you a notice saying, “You must appear in court regarding the matter of the theft of my television,” I must also be able to take forcible action in the event you refuse to settle the matter through non-violent means. Otherwise, you will simply ignore my summons.
In a stateless society, it appears that an aggressor would have no incentive to seek non-violent resolution of a dispute with his victim. After all, an aggressor usually will not attack unless he reasonably believes he can get away with the attack in the first place.
That is, he has already calculated that he can win a martial contest with the victim. Therefore, the victim must be able to present a sufficient threat to the accused in order to motivate the aggressor to come to court. That is, both parties must have an incentive to seek a peaceful settlement of the matter. Law and security, then, are inseparable. You cannot have real rights without the capacity to present a real threat to aggressors who refuse peaceful settlement of disputes. In other words, if you steal my television, and I send you a notice saying, “You must appear in court regarding the matter of the theft of my television,” I must also be able to take forcible action in the event you refuse to settle the matter through non-violent means. Otherwise, you will simply ignore my summons.
In a stateless society, the strong man has no need to go to court. He can just intimidate you into acquiescence, or outright kill you. What mechanism prevents this in a state of anarchy?
I've spoken directly to this issue, saying that ultimately you need a court of last resort that can compel attendance, and since anything society imbues with the right to use coercion in society on behalf of society becomes a state entity, does not a court of last resort (not to exclude private courts naturally) become an essential structure in any free society?
And if you want an example of the strong man in a (quasi) stateless society, look only to the mafia, whom exist unlawfully, and use the worst sort of intimidation to get their way, and would exist in exactly the same manner in a stateless society. In fact, I contend that any truly stateless anarch society would actually encourage the creation of multiple mafia-like private mobs, grouped together for protection against other mobs, because any group will be more powerful than an individual. Individual existence will be impossible in an anarch society governed by the strengths of groups, where whom you belong to will matter more than principles, more than rights. Rather than banish aggression, you will have instituted it completely by neutering societal use of responsive coercion, of justice.
In such a place there are no more rights, there is only the will of the strong men, and the strongest man's will is "law".
Therefore, the victim must be able to present a sufficient threat to the accused in order to motivate the aggressor to come to court.
I've spoken directly to this issue, saying that ultimately you need a court of last resort that can compel attendance
not a court of last resort (not to exclude private courts naturally) become an essential structure in any free society?
And if you want an example of the strong man in a (quasi) stateless society, look only to the mafia, whom exist unlawfully,
would exist in exactly the same manner in a stateless society.
I contend that any truly stateless anarch society would actually encourage the creation of multiple mafia-like private mobs, grouped together for protection against other mobs, because any group will be more powerful than an individual.
Individual existence will be impossible in an anarch society governed by the strengths of groups, where whom you belong to will matter more than principles, more than rights. Rather than banish aggression, you will have instituted it completely by neutering societal use of responsive coercion, of justice
Malachi:this is also subject to the calculation problem. Only a private solution will suffice. In a private law society, private individuals would attain their own means of protection through market activity.
But you see the problem, don't you? What about those whom have already been overpowered, made slaves to some strong man, and now cannot by any means obtain private protection. How is there justice where only those who can afford protection can afford justice. And not just slaves, but children, the mentally impaired, the elderly, the very poor, and a host of other people whom would find your proposition so difficult as to be virtually impossible. What about even the tourist, new in town. No hired protection means they're free marks for thieves and looters?
No. Societies historically have hired police to enforce justice on a societal-wide scale, to ensure justice reigns wherever they find aggression within the borders of their jurisdiction, and regardless of the wealth or ability to pay of whomever needs help.
There would really be no difference between a society collecitvely hiring a private police force to dispense justice on a societal-wide scale and a government that does the same thing. The minute you begin acting as a collective for any goal, you're tip-toeing into definitions of government. And when arguments arise as to what laws should be enforced, you're likely to create some kind of law, and have some method for establishing law.
Malachi:In a stateless society, the strong man has no need to go to court. He can just intimidate you into acquiescence, or outright kill you. What mechanism prevents this in a state of anarchy? there are no weak men.
Except children, the elderly, the poor, and anyone else who has neither the physical muscle nor the ability to purchase as many weapons and henchmen as the richest man in any given anarchic society. Care to explain further, because this claim of yours makes no sense. Of course there are 'weak' people.
Malachi:The strong men find it to be profitable to settle disputes peaceably.
Perhaps some of them will, but surely some of them will not. You cannot dismiss the strongmen who also prefer being criminals. Whom will not settle disputes peaceably. How does an anarch society compel them to come to court? It cannot.
Only if you come to the offender's gates with an overwhelming military such that he has no chance were he to fight back is he willing to accept being taken to court. In which case you're telling me that anyone unable to afford or rent such a force will not receive justice in an anarch society, will not have their rights respected. It will open season on children, the elderly, the weak, the poor, whom can have their rights violated at the merest whim with the surety that no one can harm them.
To mitigate this, the weaker individuals will group together under the banner of a strong man, creating exactly my scenario: mob against mob, mafia against mafia. Now there are no courts at all, there is only open warfare, with wrongs settled by the spilling of blood, Hatfields vs McCoys.
Malachi:I've spoken directly to this issue, saying that ultimately you need a court of last resort that can compel attendance could this court be a sort of "legitimate strongman" who compels obedience?
Since it does so with the consent of the entire society, and is used purely for responsive-coercion to establish justice, it is in fact a legitimate strongman. That's what an essentialist state is, a state limited to responsive-coercion and acting as the ultimate strongman, whose entire existence seeks to establish justice via the upholding of individual rights, no matter who you are or how much money you have.
Malachi:So you solve the problem by redefining it as a solution. Nice.
Not at all. The only way to fight aggression, once words fail, is with coercion to compel the end of that aggression.
We could let family members seek justice. That would be vigilantism, and it generally does not result in justice because the avenger usually goes too far, having nothing to restrain them. They only perpetuate the aggression and provoke more aggression on the other side.
Or we could invest the right of vengeance in a dispassionate third party whom will hear out both sides and use obejctive rules of evidence and court procedures to ensure that the punishment meets the crime. That is true justice.
Malachi:not a court of last resort (not to exclude private courts naturally) become an essential structure in any free society? no. The threat of violence that compels attendance is inseparable from the dispute itself. No "court of last resort" is necessary.
Explain then, because I think you're skirting the issue. When you have someone whom has killed a man, and he refuses to go to court to pay for his crime. What then? Suppose the victim had no friends or family. Is the crime simply forgotten by society? Or does society in general have an interest, indeed a need, to oppose murder no matter who is murdered?
Malachi:And if you want an example of the strong man in a (quasi) stateless society, look only to the mafia, whom exist unlawfully, are you suggesting that the mafia exist in some anarchic region somewhere?
The criminal underworld is such an "anarchic region", is it not? I suggest that the mafia acts much as a criminal organization would in any anarch society. And that what the mafia asks of its members is what would be asked of any group you'd be forced to join just to survive in the chaotic regions "ruled" by anarchy.
Malachi:would exist in exactly the same manner in a stateless society. thats an interesting and unique assertion. I would like to know why you think this is so.
Simply because the mafia acts in a lawless manner, and thus a lawless anarchic society should produce similar organizations. I know some here claim an anarchy need not be lawless, however without an ability to compel attendance at a court of last resort you have lawlessness.
You think you're going to hire a security force to take down the mafia? What happens when the mafia is better armed and manned than your security force. When the security force is bought and paid for themselves, intimidated just like everyone else? We have entire police forces that won't take on the mafia directly in the US and have to be tackled by specialist federal police forces.
Malachi:I contend that any truly stateless anarch society would actually encourage the creation of multiple mafia-like private mobs, grouped together for protection against other mobs, because any group will be more powerful than an individual. aside from implying this would be a bad thing by referring to your unsupported assertion above, you actually depart the field of praxeology altogether here because groups are made up of individuals and must be understood as such.
Just because groups are made up of individuals does not mean we cannot speak of groups :\ Come on. I said every individual would need group protection in order simply to survive. The would trade their freedom for compulsed loyalty just to live.
Malachi:The idea that "any group will be more powerful than an individual" in a world with nuclear weapons is laughable in the extreme.
The idea that individuals will be using nuclear weapons is laughable in the extreme. Anything an individual can do a group can do, only multiplied many times. How is that hard to understand.
The ideal is a society that respects individual rights on a widespread basis so that individuals need not join mobs simply for protection from predatory mobs.
Malachi:Your entire criticism suffers from a lack of imagination.
I could say the same thing.
Malachi:Humans have to communicate in order to coordinate their actions. Individuals command their limbs at the speed of thought. In tactical terms, this means that individuals usually have faster ooda loops (boyd cycle) than groups of individuals.
-_- are you serious. So, you're telling me that individuals can take on entire armies and win. Right. that happens every day. Like that time Osama Bin Laden singlehandedly killed every member of the Seal Team sent to take him out in his house -_- I shouldn't receive any resistance from you when I say that two or three men can physically overpower any individual, generally.
Malachi:Individual existence will be impossible in an anarch society governed by the strengths of groups, where whom you belong to will matter more than principles, more than rights. Rather than banish aggression, you will have instituted it completely by neutering societal use of responsive coercion, of justice I hope you realize this is just emotive prediction, devoid of substance.
I'm sure you like to think so. It is a forecast based on principle, rather obvious principle at that.
You want to talk about things like British common law--common law did not arise in an anarch society. It was a society under the thumb of a state. A state that left the peasants relatively alone, but nonetheless prevented large-scale abuses like wars between provinces and the like. The peasants setup their own police to administer their own laws. They may not have had state sanction in doing so, but they did have a state providing stability.
To think you can rip common law out of that overarching context and expect to live in the same peaceful society is beyond naive.
If you want to hide behind the idea that future forecasting is a logical fallacy, as Autolykos loves to do, then I pity you. It should be obvious that none of want to live under tyranny such as bruet communism. And the reason we do not is because we know what would result. We know the result would be aggression over every segment of society. You're like the communists, faced with this allegation saying, "no one can say the sun will come up tomorrow! You can't know that!"
Well, I know it. Communism would be a horrible thing to live under and so would anarchy.
I can sum up my entire argument with anarchists, and anyone else, quite neatly:
A society ruled by communism is under the tyranny of communism.
A society ruled by fascism is under the tyranny of fascism.
A society ruled by anarchy is under the tyranny of anarchy.
And a society ruled by justice is under--no tyranny at all. When justice rules, it will fight all injustice and ensure protection of individual rights, leading to the natural emergence of capitalism and a free society.
Why anyone would be against that is beyond me.
The anarchs think it impossible for a nation to remain just forever, and it is. But what if we could cull government when it becomes unjust, becomes aggressive, and start over with again a just state.
If one could create a constitution that kept a nation just and free for just 100 years, and then created a mechanism by which that society could be rebooted at the choice of its citizens, providing another 100 years of freedom, then why would that process ever need to stop? It could continue forever.
The USA had at least 100 years of freedom, and that was with a terribly-written constitution full of holes and power grants in every branch of government. The anarch must by implication assume that no better constitution could ever be written.
Well, I challenge that. And I intend to discover how to write one if no one else will.
But you see the problem, don't you? What about those whom have already been overpowered, made slaves to some strong man, and now cannot by any means obtain private protection.
How is there justice where only those who can afford protection can afford justice.
And not just slaves, but children, the mentally impaired, the elderly, the very poor, and a host of other people whom would find your proposition so difficult as to be virtually impossible.
I reject the theory of congenital mental illness, and without the state to limit liability and force people to inject themselves and their offspring with chemical and biological warfare agents, there wont be nearly so many mentally ill. However, please tell me how your minimal state would ensure justice on their behalf. I am all ears, convert me to your side.
What about even the tourist, new in town. No hired protection means they're free marks for thieves and looters?
There would really be no difference between a society collecitvely hiring a private police force to dispense justice on a societal-wide scale and a government that does the same thing.
And when arguments arise as to what laws should be enforced, you're likely to create some kind of law, and have some method for establishing law.
Except children, the elderly, the poor, and anyone else who has neither the physical muscle nor the ability to purchase as many weapons and henchmen as the richest man in any given anarchic society.
Care to explain further, because this claim of yours makes no sense. Of course there are 'weak' people.
Only if you come to the offender's gates with an overwhelming military such that he has no chance were he to fight back is he willing to accept being taken to court.
In which case you're telling me that anyone unable to afford or rent such a force will not receive justice in an anarch society
Since it does so with the consent of the entire society
and is used purely for responsive-coercion to establish justice, it is in fact a legitimate strongman.
That's what an essentialist state is, a state limited to responsive-coercion and acting as the ultimate strongman, whose entire existence seeks to establish justice via the upholding of individual rights, no matter who you are or how much money you have.
We could let family members seek justice.
That would be vigilantism, and it generally does not result in justice because the avenger usually goes too far, having nothing to restrain them
Explain then, because I think you're skirting the issue. When you have someone whom has killed a man, and he refuses to go to court to pay for his crime.
Suppose the victim had no friends or family.
Is the crime simply forgotten by society?
Or does society in general have an interest, indeed a need, to oppose murder no matter who is murdered?
The criminal underworld is such an "anarchic region", is it not?
I suggest that the mafia acts much as a criminal organization would in any anarch society. And that what the mafia asks of its members is what would be asked of any group you'd be forced to join just to survive in the chaotic regions "ruled" by anarchy.
Simply because the mafia acts in a lawless manner, and thus a lawless anarchic society should produce similar organizations.
I know some here claim an anarchy need not be lawless, however without an ability to compel attendance at a court of last resort you have lawlessness.
You think you're going to hire a security force to take down the mafia?
What happens when the mafia is better armed and manned than your security force.
When the security force is bought and paid for themselves, intimidated just like everyone else?
We have entire police forces that won't take on the mafia directly in the US and have to be tackled by specialist federal police forces.
The idea that individuals will be using nuclear weapons is laughable in the extreme.
Anything an individual can do a group can do, only multiplied many times. How is that hard to understand.
are you serious. So, you're telling me that individuals can take on entire armies and win.
I shouldn't receive any resistance from you when I say that two or three men can physically overpower any individual, generally.
You want to talk about things like British common law--common law did not arise in an anarch society. It was a society under the thumb of a state. A state that left the peasants relatively alone, but nonetheless prevented large-scale abuses like wars between provinces and the like.
They may not have had state sanction in doing so, but they did have a state providing stability.
If you want to hide behind the idea that future forecasting is a logical fallacy, as Autolykos loves to do, then I pity you. It should be obvious that none of want to live under tyranny such as bruet communism.
And the reason we do not is because we know what would result. We know the result would be aggression over every segment of society.
You're like the communists, faced with this allegation saying, "no one can say the sun will come up tomorrow! You can't know that!"
And a society ruled by justice
When justice rules, it will fight all injustice and ensure protection of individual rights, leading to the natural emergence of capitalism and a free society.
If one could create a constitution that kept a nation just and free for just 100 years
The USA had at least 100 years of freedom, and that was with a terribly-written constitution full of holes and power grants in every branch of government.
The anarch must by implication assume that no better constitution could ever be written.
Malachi:A society ruled by anarchy is under the tyranny of anarchy. ??? Do you even know what anarchy means? Its a condition describing a lack of something. How is that tyranny? Words please. Not baseless equivocations.
Malachi:And a society ruled by justice who is this physical incarnation of justice that you want to rule over society?
Malachi:When justice rules, it will fight all injustice and ensure protection of individual rights, leading to the natural emergence of capitalism and a free society. wow. Please describe what it means for "justice" to rule and for it to "fight all injustice."
Malachi:Why anyone would be against that is beyond me. Thats because you are a full teacup
Malachi:If one could create a constitution that kept a nation just and free for just 100 years yes, if constitutions were men then they could act. But theyre not so they cant.
Malachi:The USA had at least 100 years of freedom, and that was with a terribly-written constitution full of holes and power grants in every branch of government. hahaha, doublethink much?
Malachi: The anarch must by implication assume that no better constitution could ever be written. documents contain information. They dont compel adherance to principles. You are engaging in magical thinking.
Malachi:Well, I challenge that. And I intend to discover how to write one if no one else will. the funny thing about a charter is that people have to not only read and understand it, but actually follow it. How are you going to compel obedience to your holy document?
True. And let's suppose you or someone did create an anarchic society. Would you try to stop those who might want to live under a government from forming one? If so, you're establishing a tyranny of anarchy. Seems pretty obvious.
It's called law that prevents aggression and concerns itself only with responsive coercion. Don't be obtuse on purpose.
We already discussed that. Justice rules if you have a republic ruled by just law
meaning non-aggressive responsive coercion-based law
Just law fights aggression within society, minimizing its effects on that society.
Ludicrous, you're dodging the question with an accusation. Why would you be against a society with a state limited to responsive coercion?
You just don't think such a limit is possible long term.
But clearly it's possible for a certain term, maybe 100 years, maybe longer.
In which case what really needs to be done is to create a nation-system capable of resetting periodically.
Certainly not abandoning the state entirely, including the good things it can do to serve a society, and perhaps must do for society to exist at all without chaos.
A constitution circumscribes the limits of mens' choices within a society.
Not at all. Even with a rather poorly written constitution, which was still the greatest such document of its time, the nation was free for a significant time period.
I could maybe understand anarchist complaints if even the best document in the world could only keep a nation free for say a year or less.
I love this old canard. It's a favorite of the anarchists, to simply dismiss all law as violable and therefore supposedly without relevance to governing a society.
They don't compel adherence, sure, but the majority will adhere to a law which they agree to, and will use responsive coercion to compel adherence by law breakers.
Thus, your silly objection doesn't matter. If you were right in the slightest, then nations everywhere would simply ignore their laws entirely. That simply doesn't happen.
The fact that adherence can't be compelled is why responsive coercion must exist in a society in order to establish justice
Anarchy is a negation of that mechanism, creating a society without the ability to compel an end to aggression.
I need not. Since, had you actually read what I wrote, I crafted a system whereby people only live under the laws that they choose to live under. It's this central stroke of genius, if I do say so myself, that fundamentally changes the equation.
In my proposed scenario society, if you want to live as an anarchist, in an anarchistic jurisdiction with fellow anarchists, no one will stop you or bother you.
You cannot foist anarchism on others either.
And the only government to speak of would be the confederal government whose only role is protection of individual rights, they can do nothing else
and from which you could secede at will.
Which, being anarchists, you probably would :P Until you discovered that anarchism result in little more than chaos.
Malachi:yes, its manifestly obvious that you do not even understand the concept of anarchy. Of course I wouldnt interfere with my neighbors who wished to live any particular way, as long as they didnt violate my rights. I dont care if they dress up like communazis. You might know this if you opened your mind and closed your mouth long enough to understand "anarchy" instead of blatantly equivocating.
I understand it only too well. I understand that there are violent anarchists who wish to actively aggress against all forms of government. That's how WWI got started. Don't act as if there isn't a darker side of anarchism.
And, if I'm right that people naturally turn to the various essential functions of a state, then in your brand of non-aggressive anarchism, you would be lonely indeed. For republics would spring up all around you.
Malachi:It's called law that prevents aggression and concerns itself only with responsive coercion. Don't be obtuse on purpose. ok, please tell me what "law" is a physical incarnation of justice that is capable of actions like "preventing" things. Quit being evasive, tell me what you mean.
Deterrence is prevention, it is forcing every criminal to do a mental calculation of risk of being caught versus reward of aggression. In an anarchic society without any enforcement of individual rights the criminal will make a different calculation, strength vs reward, since you've all admitted that there's no entity existing in an anarchy capable of forcing anyone to go to court. Thus, it's open season on the weak, the poor, the young, the defenseless, who can neither physically stand up to a thug nor hire someone to do so in their 'stead.
Malachi:We already discussed that. Justice rules if you have a republic ruled by just law thats circular. How does justice rule?
It is not circular; it is only less abstract. Justice rules if just laws are enforced within that society. Justice is established by means of the enforcement of just laws, meaning laws that oppose aggression, meaning laws allowing only responsive coercion. And since violating those laws would be an aggression against society, it prevents that violation too.
I do not claim there's no place in such a society for a private police force, but neither do I think it sufficient for a free society. A private police force can only protect whom they're hired to protect. Anarchists have never answered me on whom protects the powerless and the wealthless in an anarch society. If you have an individual holding entire families as slaves on his property, who protects them? You need a police force of last resort to protect the powerless.
Malachi: Is justice a physical thing, or a concept? If it is a physical thing, please tell me where I can see it or link me to a picture.
Don't be obtuse.
Malachi:If it is a concept, how does it "rule" a republic?
Through the agents of law; don't be obtuse.
Malachi:If you want to form a government, these are questions you have to answer. You havent left the stage of "bull session."
I have answered them. You refuse to read.
Malachi:meaning non-aggressive responsive coercion-based law I asked you to define coercion and you failed to do so.
o_O Coercion is force. If I didn't say that before, then there ya go. I believe I went a step forward and defined the two kinds of coercion as well previously, the moral and immoral kind. Why did you need it defined? We both clearly know what coercion is.
Malachi:Please explain what mechanism makes this law inviolate or causes it to "rule."
Law may not be involable, but it imposes consequences for violation. As for ruling, when a society is governed by laws and not by the whims of a ruler, it is said to be ruled by law, not by men. This is elementary.
Malachi:Just law fights aggression within society, minimizing its effects on that society. are you suggesting that this "law" performs physical acts, or not?
No, I'm speaking in abstract terms. Only a dullard could imagine that law performs physical actions. Stop being obtuse.
Malachi:Ludicrous, you're dodging the question with an accusation. Why would you be against a society with a state limited to responsive coercion? a variety of reasons that you appear emotionally incapable of recognizing. First of all, limited by what?
Limited by law. What else.
Malachi:Secondly, responsive to WHOSE OPINION of what constitutes an aggressive act?
I used the term 'objective law' for a reason. It's not a question of opinion but of objective, provable reality. Such would be tested and proved in a court of law on a case by case basis. As for law itself, the opinion would be each individuals, who would group together along accepted principles in individual jurisdictions and could refuse to interact with anyone who had laws they didn't accept.
A society in a condition of anarchy, however, is entirely governed by subjective opinion of what constitutes an aggressive act, since law does not rule that society. Law is only there, in the background somewhere, if you're nice enough to come to court with me, Mr. Robber.
Malachi: Malachi:Until you answer those questions, then of course my default position is to oppose it because I havent been satisfactorily apprised of the morality of your state.
Malachi:Until you answer those questions, then of course my default position is to oppose it because I havent been satisfactorily apprised of the morality of your state.
It may be the first completely moral state ever conceived, given that I allow each individual to live only under the laws they themselves accept in the first place. It's as close to anarchy as anyone could get without actually disposing of the state. And, as far as the NAP is concerned, all I've been asking you to do is accept that if we could limit an essetialist state to only responsive coercion, wouldn't it then be a completely moral state. In objective, idealistic terms. You've refused--for emotional reasons--to agree even to that.
Questions of actual implementation are what you've battered me with, seemingly because you have no way to object on theoretical or principled terms? That's what I would expect to be faced with.
It is the questions of actual implementation that I don't have set and would love to discuss, if you can get past a philosophic commitment to total anarchism. Which, I know, is a tall order, so I don't expect it to happen. But the theory and principle of my concept for a state is sound.
Malachi:You just don't think such a limit is possible long term. actually, I dont believe you have shown that it is even conceivable, let alone possible short-term.
The founding of the US shows it conceivable and possible, and not just in the short-term. The society I propose is very much like the state the individual US colonies were in legally before the US was founded legally. They had an overarching fed, the British crown, ostensibly providing national defensible and overarching political backing. That role would be filled by a confederal government limited very similarly to the same role: non-interference in city-states, and national defense.
The colonies went on like this for hundreds of years in as close to a state of anarchy as anyone could get. And what happened wasn't that they naturally formed anarchic societies, such as the anarchs would hope would be natural to mankind, but rather they formed model societies in line with my idea: essentialist societies consisting of minimalist government and a general police-force.
Malachi:But clearly it's possible for a certain term, maybe 100 years, maybe longer. I rather doubt it, the articles of confederation were too libertarian so they got rid of those as soon as they possibly could.
That's not the spin I'd put on it. It's not that the articles were too libertarian, but rather that they were put into place without an intellectual foundation backing them. There was no theory of libertarianism back then, no principles of freedom to support an essentialist state. And, if you look at the history of the passage of the Constitution itself, it was railroaded in over the objections of the original founding fathers. But today we have that intellectual basis for a libertarian society, we can clearly articulate why it is moral moral and efficient than a collectivist or even mixed economy state.
Malachi:They needed a foundational document that authorized the state to rob people, and they got it.
As I said, it wasn't the same founding fathers that gave us the Confederation. It was the revenge of the statists of that era.
That's why acknowledging a right to political secession would make any repeat of that act impossible. If someone wanted to start a state like that, people can just walk away from them and let them fail on their own. They couldn't force an entire society to conform. What's important then is an initial core of libertarians to set such a nation's culture and found it institutions along libertarian paths.
Malachi:Certainly not abandoning the state entirely, including the good things it can do to serve a society, and perhaps must do for society to exist at all without chaos. ok I will bite. What "good" things? How does the state prevent chaos?
The nature of the 'good things' is take directly from the moral use of coercion, which is to oppose aggression--the immoral uses of coercion. So, the good things a state can do is to oppose aggression, and by that support individual rights. That means being a civil/criminal court of last resort, writing objective law limited to responsive coercion, and protecting society at large from war-aggression. Doing this has the effect of preventing chaos.
Malachi: A constitution circumscribes the limits of mens' choices within a society. are you suggesting that a constitution acts to limit men's choices, or are you acknowledging that it is simply a document that contains information that people may or may not choose to follow?
It is a document of information that people may or may not choose to follow, however it is a legal document with legal force, meaning choosing not to follow will result in prosecution. This is only a bad thing is the document contains an aggression within its laws. If it is purely designed to oppose aggression, then prosecution resulting from violations of it is a purely good thing for everyone.
Malachi:Not at all. Even with a rather poorly written constitution, which was still the greatest such document of its time, the nation was free for a significant time period. What parts of the nation? Just the ones you care about, or all of it?
I assume you're referring to slavery. I'll grant you that caveat, that was certainly a black mark in hindsight. However, since the US was among the leaders in ending slavery, and had outlaws it in roughly half their territory, at a time when nowhere else on the planet had outlawed slavery save for London city, I think they were leaders in establishing freedom from slavery as well. Who else fought a civil war over slavery.
Malachi:please outline the mechanism by which a document "keeps" a nation free.
By punishing aggression and allowing the only choices government officials can make, if they wish to stay within the law and avoid prosecution themselves, to be non-aggression ones involved with responsive coercion only.
The usual method of controlling what a government can do is severaly limiting its freedom to create laws. In the US, this is done by the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights has many holes today, through which it has take statism some two hundred years to seep through, and it still has not completely succeeded today. But with all the progress it has made, how upset would the statists be if we were able to revert, to send law back two hundred years and wipe the books clean, including legal precedent. The government would be scrambling to pass the obviously good laws again, and the controversial ones wouldbe stymied.
This, I have thought of creating a legal system by which laws have a shelf-life and automatically expire every X number of years, forcing them to come up for vote again, and return to first principles.
Such things as Gloria Allred's attempt to use a 100+ year old speech law to arrest Rush Limbaugh couldn't happen.
I've never said the government should be able to force taxes on anyone. This seems to be a theme among anarchists, that the state always taxes. The state will only tax if its founding laws allow it to tax. I do not propose the ability to compulse taxes on you.
Malachi:They don't compel adherence, sure, but the majority will adhere to a law which they agree to, and will use responsive coercion to compel adherence by law breakers. so you envision 51% of the population walking around enforcing your constitution because they agree with it?
No. I envision a system where the only laws governing a person are those they agreed to live under. How many times do I have to say it.
Malachi:The fact that adherence can't be compelled is why responsive coercion must exist in a society in order to establish justice its revealing that you cannot imagine "responsive coercion" without a guy in a funny hat giving orders.
What does it reveal, exactly. I notice you don't say.
I'll tell you what it reveals. It reveals that I'm not naive enough to think that everyone can afford private security, that society can get exist without a non-partisan police force to protect the defenseless.
While I would certainly allow any anarchist their dream of private police protection, I also worry about the powerless who would be unable to contract for service. No anarchist has yet answered my challenge of how a slave obtains their freedom in an anarchist state. The slave cannot even sue, because they cannot leave their owner's property.
But an objective 3rd party police force whose job it is to uphold justice on a widespread basis and without thought to compensation, serving as a poice force of last resort for the powerless and those who cannot afford to hire justice, seems a necessity unless you can answer the challenge of how the powerless obtain justice in an anarch society.
Malachi:Anarchy is a negation of that mechanism, creating a society without the ability to compel an end to aggression. it has already been observed in this thread that you do not appear to know what anarchy actually is. Please do us a favor and explain how anarchy is a negation of responsive coercion.
Why don't you answer the challenge for once. Again, anarchs in this thread have said there need not be a court of last resort able to compel attendance. Without that, you have negated the mechanism of responsive coercion within society and allowed an aggressor to go free. Anyone not able to raise enough martial might to force an aggressor to court will not receive justice in an anarch society. Please answer that for once.
Malachi:I need not. Since, had you actually read what I wrote, I crafted a system whereby people only live under the laws that they choose to live under. It's this central stroke of genius, if I do say so myself, that fundamentally changes the equation. how is that any different from anarchy?
Exactly my point. I don't understand why anarchs are opposing my idea so vehemently when it's so incredibly close to your ideal.
It differs from anarchy in that this principle of chosen law only is institutionalized, encoded in law, thus creating a self-propagating system instead of a legal vacuum anarchy would exist in, a vacuum in which some may feel compelled to create a state and push out anarchists, and the state they would create would likely be statist, would be a far worse state than the one we'd build.
So we cut them off at the knees by creating a viable and self-propagating legal system in which you can have any level of government you want, and cannot be forced to accept others' ideas of what government should be. Thus allowing the best form of government to rise to the top, like beer froth, and attract citizens via a pure expression of political ideals realized in actuality. People would see what every political theory of the best way to govern a society would result in, because each society would be allowed to govern itself without outside ideological interference, and thus no one to blame but themselves if things go wrong.
I would create a world where you as an anarchist could live as you so desire, w/e amount of government that is. I just don't think you'd attract anyone except those already able to afford a private police force. But you'd be free to try.
It's the only way I know that pure anarchy could be viable, ironically, is in the legal system I'm proposing.
Malachi:In my proposed scenario society, if you want to live as an anarchist, in an anarchistic jurisdiction with fellow anarchists, no one will stop you or bother you. what if I want to live on my property?
Declare your property a unique jurisdiction and you're done. You would declare this to the confederal gov who would then offer you confederal membership as a unique city-state. If you accept the confed's offer, stay within the borders of the larger confederal territories. If not, ship out. Up to you. Probably many people would make their own property a unique jurisdiction, but would choose to join the confed for international protection.
In my proposed scenario, the confed's only legal role is protection of individual rights on a societal-wide basis, tho not to the point of providing police-services. More like rooting out piracy, and if a charter city were found to be aggressing against their members, the confed would "arrest" the city-state and try it by jury and dissolve it if it were found guilty. In other words, the confed may only use responsive coercion.
Malachi:You cannot foist anarchism on others either. I wonder where you got this idea that I would want to foist anything on anyone
Many anarchists do want to foist anarchy. Without some overarching legal framework, do you think anarchy can ever exist in actuality? Without a legal framework, you'll be handing the society to the statists. And it will likely be created by someone who's not an essentialist like me, without any notion of rational limits or holding government to the NAP.
Malachi:And the only government to speak of would be the confederal government whose only role is protection of individual rights, they can do nothing else what mechanism limits their ability to do something else? and who funds this government?
I'm still working on this aspect. It sounds like you are implictly agreeing that if it were doable it would be good, but the devil's in the details. I agree. I may spend the next ten years attempting to perfect the legal mechanisms involved. But I don't expect there to be only one confed, but several, with people trying different mechanisms. This is a society of experimentation. If one confed began going off kilter, charter states could secede and join another confed. So once again, power is in the hands of the individual people. It would be possible for a well-run charter city-state to secede and start a new confed as well.
I'll give you my best working answer I have today, with caveats that I don't expect them to stand.
What mechanism limits the confed's ability to do anything except protect basic rights? A constitution with a hefty limit to change (probably unanimous vote by charter state members), and a lack of any power to make law. The confed will be constrained to prosecuting charter cities which have begun aggressing against their citizens and proved to be doing so in a neutral 3rd party charter-city court (not a confed court). Prosecuting a whole city would be quite a dramatic affair, and the legal stands would rise. This would be written into the constitution. A charter city would be judged by its peers, with a panel of judges drawn from the neutral charter cities (odd number of course).
Thus, the confed has no unilateral power to harrass any charter city.
Similarly, any decision to go to war may require a similar prosecutorial approach, drawing together neutral judges from the pool of cities, to make a legal decision to go to war. Or perhaps the confed could appeal to the majority of legislatures of the city-states to go to war.
But the ultimate check on any process created is the ability to instantly secede from the city-state or the confed itself should you disagree strongly with any decision made. This right of secession will be the strongest guarantor of justice.
As for how it's all paid for, in a nation of voluntary membership what could be more appropriate than voluntary payment. Not taxation, but something more like a subscription. The right not to be taxed against your will would be one of the new rights, along with secession.
Apart from that, I suggest a government in which government services are paid for by use, not by tax. For instance, rather than sales tax you could choose to have any court you like "insure" a transaction meaning you pay a small fee such that if there's a dispute the court will litigate it. Most people would use a private court for that. However, if neither side can amicably reach a solution, there's the state court of last resort able to compel a solution with the force of law. Similarly, criminals would pay for their own prosecution as much they're able, or as much as can be extracted from their worldly belongings.
Malachi:and from which you could secede at will. A. What does that mean? B.They dont try to protect my rights anymore? C.I have to leave my property? D.am I still subject to their courts?
A. It means you severa all legal ties and bonds between you. You are not longer a citizen of that city-state or the confed, depending on which level you're seceding from. As a result, you should move your property out of that city-state asap. Since I posit this society existing on the open-ocean, floating your house away is pretty easy. In the case of immovable property, either the city itself will move, or non-contiguous boundaries can be worked out in extreme cases.
B. They will protect your rights, much as they would any tourist. But any attempted obligations they passed will not fall upon you. Because this society is designed to allow even experimentation in government structures that I consider terrible, and to be tolerant of them as long as they don't engage in citizen-capture, I find it rather likely that some people will try to create a statist version of a city-state, in which wealth redistribution exists, etc. They will be free to do this, because the only people who will live there will do so willingly, thus accepting the laws passed. But suppose someone passes an actual tax. They can do this at the city-state level, just not at the confed level. If you don't vote for the tax and it passes, you may choose to accept the law or secede. Personally, I'd secede.
C. You float it away with you.
D. You're subject to their courts only like a tourist would be, meaning only if you aggress against someone. As for the law you're fleeing, I'd probably write something into the constitution to the effect that anyone seceding from a city state shall be allowed to do so within a reasonable amount of time before any law they obejct to can be forced on them. Using 'reasonable' amount of time is a bit vague but allows a judge to take into account that diff people have diff situation and amounts of stuff to move. A day might be reasonable for a college kid, while six months reasonable for a manjor corporation.
Malachi:Which, being anarchists, you probably would :P Until you discovered that anarchism result in little more than chaos. bla blah bleh, whatever, keep making dumb comments because its obvious that you abandoned 90% of your claims as soon as I asked you a few questions.
Or did you just come to understand my idea more fully (at last, thank god).
Anemone, when are you going to respond to me?
Anenome: I understand that there are violent anarchists who wish to actively aggress against all forms of government.
I understand that there are violent anarchists who wish to actively aggress against all forms of government.
Wait, what? How do you aggress against something that has already aggressed against you? The answer: to violate their rights more than they have violated your own...but is that even possible with a state? I suppose one could make the argument that to assault a postman is the same as aggressing against the state, but that seems kind of weird to me. Maybe other anarchists are okay with murdering postman, but I have never gotten that impression from anyone...
Anenome: I used the term 'objective law' for a reason. It's not a question of opinion but of objective, provable reality. Such would be tested and proved in a court of law on a case by case basis. As for law itself, the opinion would be each individuals, who would group together along accepted principles in individual jurisdictions and could refuse to interact with anyone who had laws they didn't accept. A society in a condition of anarchy, however, is entirely governed by subjective opinion of what constitutes an aggressive act, since law does not rule that society. Law is only there, in the background somewhere, if you're nice enough to come to court with me, Mr. Robber.
You might want to clarify what you are saying there, because as it is now, you are contradicting yourself. Also, I get it that you don't seem to care for common law or customary law, and that you only consider statutory law to be law, but you can't keep denying the existence of the first two...because after all, they exist.
Anenome: I assume you're referring to slavery. I'll grant you that caveat, that was certainly a black mark in hindsight. However, since the US was among the leaders in ending slavery, and had outlaws it in roughly half their territory, at a time when nowhere else on the planet had outlawed slavery save for London city, I think they were leaders in establishing freedom from slavery as well. Who else fought a civil war over slavery.
This just isn't even true...wikipedia entry for slavery.
Anenome: I do not claim there's no place in such a society for a private police force, but neither do I think it sufficient for a free society. A private police force can only protect whom they're hired to protect. Anarchists have never answered me on whom protects the powerless and the wealthless in an anarch society. If you have an individual holding entire families as slaves on his property, who protects them? You need a police force of last resort to protect the powerless.
See this here by Roderick Long. Anyway, the elite have it better under a statist system because they can spend less money to get their will done. In anarchy, the only way to pay for something is to pay for it yourself. Instead, the elite can go to war with Iraq because they tax everyone in the country to fund it. Imagine the fortune 500 trying to fund the Iraq war themselves. Couldn't happen. Nevermind Afghanistan or Libya, or the probable wars to come with Syria and Iran. The elite could in no way dominate society and the world as they do now if there were anarchy. They just would not have the resources. And that's if they were all to band together to fund it, which is a highly unlikely scenario anyway.
Anyway, who protects the poor now? The police recover stolen property in the ghetto all the time, right? And they solve all of the murders? No one goes unpunished? Puhlease.
People, whats wrong with you? you have better understanding of real world thats why you're Libertarians right?
bunch of thing happend durring the colonial era, but this case is differant don't you realize?
believe or not, there are lotsa miss used land (although i didn't read the whole artical), whats wrong buying the land from it's owners even that place is used by them?
sub devisions/sub states are already there, this idea just will bring it to next level, it's a great idea.
Minerva republic and United states of America are 2 differant cases that we must learn from .
Minervans didn't have long time strategy and they got kicked their asses by a backword kingdom.
not only the minerva they could lock the whole Tongan economy while they sit in there offices, but the kingdom troups sent them out, this was their mistake not anyone else's.
However American founding fathers got long time strategy, they were well organized, not only they commit wars but also bought some of the land, this is pretty capitalistic and highly fair.
so if we want our ideals come true, we should think pragmatical and practical, what works best must be way to go for us.
i would say sub cities, not sub states, sorry for the confusian...
I'm always interested in an honest discussion. I'm not an ass and will follow logic where it flows. And I admit I may not know enough about what you guys mean by anarchism in all its facets to discuss all aspects intelligently. If you want to point out where I've misrepresented your view, I'll take another look with a fresh face and promise not to dismiss your concerns. Most likely it's due to my own misconceptions about anarchy in general rather than purposeful misrepresentation, as I am deeply opposed to purposeful misrepresentation in any medium. In the meantime, I'll do some research on anarchy in general and get back to this thread at the end of that journey.
Right now my working assumptions are as follows:
- Any actual society of anarchism would have no defense (save violence?) against the masses around you whom would try to start a statist nation in the absense of one and simply assume you to be part of it, thus aggressing against you. However, not all states need be formed that way, and not all states need aggress. It it possible in principle for a state to exist that never aggresses against its citizens, and I've tried to actualize in legal form exactly that, largely because it doesn't seem like anarchism ever could exist on its own--but I admit that's not an as formed perception as it could be, based largely on lack of any historical examples of anarch society.
- Any attempt to institute common law without an overarching legal backbone would likely fail because not every individual has the means of compulsing a law-breaker into court. Any situation where going to court is guaranteed to result in punishment of the criminal will find resistance to going to court, such as in nearly all criminal cases. Anarchs suggest using private security to compulse in the name of common law. Mob formation makes this scenario far more difficult to imagine leading to an amicable, much less peaceful, outcome.
- I've read anarchists say that stigma and reputation will prevent people from acting criminally in the market, such that a banker who stole from receipts would find no one willing to do business with him again. I find the problem with that being that it creates incentive to store up as much reputation as possible and steal as much as possible in one big event. Thus, an owner of a bank would be incentivized to steal billions on his first embezzlement. He'd crash the bank, but no one would be able to force him to court, for he no longer needs anyone to transact with him as a banker, he's set for life. And since he can both hire the best 'protection' and there's no court of last resort, he's home free. A court of last resort could forcibly recover funds from him. An anarch society would find that far harder to deal with or perhaps even impossible.
- If in principle the state can act such that it remains within the bounds of the NAP, then the concept of the state is not innately immoral. And, tho we have but scant example, a non-aggressing state in actuality may indeed be possible.
- As an argument from history, multiple people groups around the world developed governments independently. Probably because institutional governments were able to bring more force to bear on their neighbors than mere tribes which are tied to family groups. Governments could bridge multiple family ties. The ideal anarchist state cannot exist without facing the unified force of exterior nations, anarchs would be forced by necessity to group together in something like a confederalist organization simply to provide a unified front anyway. I provide a framework for that.
- If anarch opposition to any form of government rests on the supposition that government always aggresses, yet I show how it's possible for an essentialist government to exist without aggressing, then that seems to attack the heart of the principle of anarchism itself. Right or wrong about that I'm not completely sure. But I've talked to some wacky anarchs. Including some with supposedly varying definitions of property by which they justified outright aggression (supporting the labor-theory of property and by that justifying the theft of a factory by its workers from its owner, for instance. Leftist anarchs, mostly, are the irrational ones.)
As for Autolykos, I would prefer he exchange his idea of anarchism in actuality in opposition to my idea of essentialism, though I have no right to demand it. Since he's interested only in tearing down my idea, being obnoxious generally, and has an irrational commitment to anti-statism, going so far as to call me a statist, which I find hilarious given my views, I see no point in continuing with him. He wields logic as a bludgeon rather than a tool to get at truth.
Anemone:As for Autolykos, I would prefer he exchange his idea of anarchism in actuality in opposition to my idea of essentialism, though I have no right to demand it. Since he's interested only in tearing down my idea, being obnoxious generally, and has an irrational commitment to anti-statism, going so far as to call me a statist, which I find hilarious given my views, I see no point in continuing with him. He wields logic as a bludgeon rather than a tool to get at truth.
In light of this rather slanderous paragraph, in which you don't even address me directly, I'm now going to repeatedly demand that you respond directly to this post of mine, which you now admit you've been ignoring. I will do this as many times as necessary. I will even go as far as to start one new thread after another to repeat this demand.
as i said in my other thread, using the word Anarchy, Anarchism wouldn't ebenfit us other than use of market anarchy or description of a moode.
So if we use instead Anarcho capitalist term, we may use some general law prinsiple to apply social order and that will lead us thru constitutionalism...