General

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

MacFall — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:37:59 GMT

DRO = Dispute Resolution Organization.

GWilly:
or if your really pissed off - most brutal in response?

Once again, the absurd idea that everyone is out to get everyone else (except for you, of course).

EEEEK who are the DRO held Accountable to?

First, to you. If you don't like them, you can fire them.

Second, to other DROs, who likewise must compete on the basis of efficiency, price, quality of service, and good reputation. None of which they will ever achive if they are bandit organizations.

Third, to third-party arbitors and watchdog groups.

Finally, to a well-armed general populace who does not want to be expropriated and abused by rogue DROs.

In the AnCap utopia Who has power over the DRO

Essentially, a private DRO is accountable to everyone. A government is accountable to nobody, because they, by definition, have a monopoly on force and final decision-making power.

what stops it simply becomming a mercenary private army that sells itself to the highest bidder?

See above.

And I should ask a similar question about the state - what stops it simply becoming a gang of thugs with the exclusive right to rob and murder?

The answer is: nothing. Because that is what a state is, in fact - an organization with a monopoly on crime, and a good PR department.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

liberty student — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:04:29 GMT

MacFall, please explain DRO, not for me, but for the people who don't have the benefit of the exposure to jargon and minutiae.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

GWilly — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:56:40 GMT

Scenario 1 - the market scenario: You get to choose the DRO you find to be the least expensive and the most efficient and service-oriented

or if your really pissed off - most brutal in response? EEEEK who are the DRO held Accountable to?

And we're seeing that in what context, again?

In times like these maybe it;s better the devil you know that is consistent & has some semblance of accountability

In the AnCap utopia Who has power over the DRO - what stops it simply becomming a mercenary private army that sells itself to the highest bidder?

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

JAlanKatz — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:02:09 GMT

GWilly:
We are seeing more & more instances over here of street gangs terrorizing entire neighbouhoods.

And we're seeing that in what context, again? Leave aside the fact that these street gangs thrive economically only when victimless crimes exist - we're seeing it with the government running the police. How is this an argument for a government police force?

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

MacFall — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:01:08 GMT

GWilly:

I obviously believe the majority of people are non-aggresive, but am also aware that many are bullys

We are seeing more & more instances over here of street gangs terrorizing entire neighbouhoods.

Niether of which in any way explains why we need to have a state around, who not only monopolizes the right to use force, but also the courts.

Scenario 1 - the market scenario: You get to choose the DRO you find to be the least expensive and the most efficient and service-oriented, and dump their a§§es whenever they fail to meet your demands as a consumer. In the case of a conflict, you go to the arbitor you find to be the least expensive, and the most just and service-oriented.

Scenario 2 - the state scenario: You have only one choice. They make the laws. You not only pay a monopoly price for their service, but you must also pay for things they do which do not constitute service in any way. You have a government-run police force enforcing goverment-created laws. In the case of a conflict with the government, you go to a government court, run by government employees who decide whether it is you or the government who is in the right, and even if you are found to be right, they, not you, decide what they have to do about it.

What you are defending is a mandatory conflict of interests with the power to use violence.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

GWilly — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:25:08 GMT

I hear what your saying Liberty but people here in the UK are not very brave when it comes to threats from machette's & guns, the thugs father had previously been jailed for attacking someone with a Machette.

JAlanKatz:

GWilly:

Well you may call this a Statist Fallacy, but I can only speak therough personal experience

The logic of your post escapes me. The story is tragic and horrible - and you know that of the people reading it, roughly 100% will think so. You don't expect people to say "What's the problem?" Why is that? Is it not because you recognize exactly what you are trying to disprove - that the vast majority of people are non-aggressive and are horrified by such aggressive actions? You've tried to disprove this claim by showing that one person is aggressive, but that would only work if the claim was that everyone was non-aggressive. Further, you know that people will be moved by the story, precisely because people recognize that such things shouldn't happen.

Next, you explain the typically inept, bureacrat police and government response. The logic there would have to be "Look at the lousy job the police do (while shielded from market competition) - that's why we need them!" So, it seems you believe that we need inept and bureacratic respose to aggression rather than speedy and effective response. In that case, you are correct, we ought to have a state. I doubt that's what you really think, though.

JAl The Logic of my post was simply that I'm not yet convinced that an Anarchists commerial police force would offer a more speedy and effective response to a financially poor family.

I obviously believe the majority of people are non-aggresive, but am also aware that many are bullys

We are seeing more & more instances over here of street gangs terrorizing entire neighbouhoods.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

JAlanKatz — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:34:02 GMT

GWilly:

Well you may call this a Statist Fallacy, but I can only speak therough personal experience

The logic of your post escapes me. The story is tragic and horrible - and you know that of the people reading it, roughly 100% will think so. You don't expect people to say "What's the problem?" Why is that? Is it not because you recognize exactly what you are trying to disprove - that the vast majority of people are non-aggressive and are horrified by such aggressive actions? You've tried to disprove this claim by showing that one person is aggressive, but that would only work if the claim was that everyone was non-aggressive. Further, you know that people will be moved by the story, precisely because people recognize that such things shouldn't happen.

Next, you explain the typically inept, bureacrat police and government response. The logic there would have to be "Look at the lousy job the police do (while shielded from market competition) - that's why we need them!" So, it seems you believe that we need inept and bureacratic respose to aggression rather than speedy and effective response. In that case, you are correct, we ought to have a state. I doubt that's what you really think, though.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

liberty student — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:11:30 GMT

All the more reason to advocate self-defense. Not vigilantism, but self-defense with neighbors working together to look out for one another.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

GWilly — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:07:03 GMT

MacFall:

GWilly:

Good Grief - you Guys scare me with your Guns n Revolutions.

To be quite frank if there was a full Anarcho libertarian revolution here in the UK Tommorrow I would likely take to the hills with my family and hide until the rape & plunder died down.

NAP My Bum!! - I'm a realist & know that most people within a hundred miles of me don't know what NAP means nevermind lve by the principle.

Classic statist fallacy: Everyone (except for you and your family of course) is a murdering, raping animal who would run feral the very instant that the government goes away. Never mind that the government is made up of precisely the same sort of people.

No, in fact all but a very small percentage of people have no desire to initate force against one another. Without institutionalized force, that won't change. It will become more evident.

Well you may call this a Statist Fallacy, but I can only speak therough personal experience

2 weeks ago my Niece, Boyfriend & three children Fled their council house in Hucknall Nottingham after being Burgled & Identifying the street thugs responsible to the Police, They came back and threatened to Shoot him.

They have moved their valuables into my garage and currently live with my sister in a two bedroomed house.

Police response was " we can't do anything as we have no proof - we know this person well & you are not the only people he is terrorizing, but we are powerless"

MP Response was "I'll assign a councillor to it"

Councillor Response was " why did you contact the MP, I said I would look into it, sorry we can't relocate you to another council house, you already have one"

They have not saved enough money yet to pay 2Mths upfront Private Rent even though Peter works full time.

This is my world & hopefuly you can understand the publics lack of support for disbanding the police force (as crap as they are!) in the name of an ideology that they have never understood

UK Minarchist

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

Maxliberty — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:01:26 GMT

GWilly:

Thanks for the Chat - I do value all of your opinions.

I understand that most Anarchists simply disagree with Minarchists & that most Minarchists simply disagree with Anarchists.

I also hope that one day, we can all do something more productive for our fellow man, rather than waffling on about our differences - because we both believe in the NAP

I simply see the NAP as something to aspire to, like not lieing or not being vindictive, you guys don't seem to want to do anything unless the NAP is fundamentally embedded

UK Minarchist

The NAP philosophy is fundamentally embedded in the human psyche. Why is it that nearly everyone believes they have the right to be left alone or people can't trespas on your property? Or that people can't punch you in the face? It is not the state that tells us this is wrong it is our human nature that tells us this is wrong. The state shouldn't be allowed to do anything that if an indivudual did would be wrong.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

Maxliberty — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:56:42 GMT

Simon Lote:

Yes it may be possible to populate & achieve autonomy of any one of a thousand other less populated Islands, this would inevitably set back libertarianism 100 years - just look at what your media & embargoes did to Cuba.

NO - The only way is a Grass Roots Ground Swell of popular opinion originating from where they live, after all if the majority can clearly and undeniably state that they are the majority - then by Democratic Principles (& the vote) the Establishment MUST obey!!!

My media and embargoes? I don't recall ever placing an embargo on Cuba? I also don't see how trying to achieve libertarian secession on the periphery is going to setback Libertarianism 100 years, Colonial America was very much on the periphery of the British State and yet it was there that a new revoluionary order was created.

You should check out the Liberty Colony Simon. www.libertycolony.com

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

MacFall — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:43:38 GMT

GWilly:

Good Grief - you Guys scare me with your Guns n Revolutions.

To be quite frank if there was a full Anarcho libertarian revolution here in the UK Tommorrow I would likely take to the hills with my family and hide until the rape & plunder died down.

NAP My Bum!! - I'm a realist & know that most people within a hundred miles of me don't know what NAP means nevermind lve by the principle.

Classic statist fallacy: Everyone (except for you and your family of course) is a murdering, raping animal who would run feral the very instant that the government goes away. Never mind that the government is made up of precisely the same sort of people.

No, in fact all but a very small percentage of people have no desire to initate force against one another. Without institutionalized force, that won't change. It will become more evident.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

GWilly — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:57:15 GMT

Sorry Simon I don't know where your from

But lets not underestimate the media machine of the state, if this small breakaway periphery in the UK started to become a threat then it would be gracefully strangled out of existence whilst society where shown colour images of the cold & hungry inhabitants.

This new & revolutionary order you refer to was not simply created, many thousands died in the war of independance.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

scineram — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:11:04 GMT

Indeed, the central pseudo-government was withering away under the Articles until the new national government was forced on the population.

Re: Free State Project: too ambitious = No

Simon Lote — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:47:10 GMT

Yes it may be possible to populate & achieve autonomy of any one of a thousand other less populated Islands, this would inevitably set back libertarianism 100 years - just look at what your media & embargoes did to Cuba.

NO - The only way is a Grass Roots Ground Swell of popular opinion originating from where they live, after all if the majority can clearly and undeniably state that they are the majority - then by Democratic Principles (& the vote) the Establishment MUST obey!!!

My media and embargoes? I don't recall ever placing an embargo on Cuba? I also don't see how trying to achieve libertarian secession on the periphery is going to setback Libertarianism 100 years, Colonial America was very much on the periphery of the British State and yet it was there that a new revoluionary order was created.