A question for anarchists

[Agent Chameleon]

I've noted that there are many anarchists on this board (which surprises me considering Ron Paul isn't an anarchist), and that has made me think about anarchy.

I have question for people who consider themselves anarchists. How would anarchy work?

Or more specifically, lets pretend that there's an anarchistic revolution launched in America and the country becomes an anarchy. How would the people be able to maintain an anarchy when we live in a world full of statist regimes? What would stop China or Russia or any other country from viewing the lawless region once known as the USA as a land ripe for the pickings and take it over? I'm not even going to address the warlord issue, just the threat from outside regimes alone.

How would it work? Would we hope for other countries to follow suit and turn into anarchies like a domino effect?

[Truth Warrior]

Well in your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't it be necessary to then take America one by one and house by house? Who would there be to surrender us to a China or Russia ( or UN )?

No SHEPHERDS!

[orafi]

adm. yamamoto of japan (circa uh ww2) feared the idea of invading the us because there would be a motherf***ing glock hiding behind every shade of badass.

i think that's word for word. but you get his point?

[mport1]

I've noted that there are many anarchists on this board (which surprises me considering Ron Paul isn't an anarchist), and that has made me think about anarchy.

I have question for people who consider themselves anarchists. How would anarchy work?

Or more specifically, lets pretend that there's an anarchistic revolution launched in America and the country becomes an anarchy. How would the people be able to maintain an anarchy when we live in a world full of statist regimes? What would stop China or Russia or any other country from viewing the lawless region once known as the USA as a land ripe for the pickings and take it over? I'm not even going to address the warlord issue, just the threat from outside regimes alone.

How would it work? Would we hope for other countries to follow suit and turn into anarchies like a domino effect?

Glad that you are asking great questions instead of writing us off at nuts as many on the boards do (although I can't really fault them because I though anarchy was nuts until I studied it). One of the last few chapters of The Market for Liberty explains this much better than I could hope to do. Check out the free audio book, it is great - http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/ or text version - http://mises.org/story/2220

One major factor would be the structure of the country. Without a state apparatus to take over, conquest would be very difficult. There is no central controlling agency that can be conquered to then turn in on the people.

The vast, sprawled population of people would pose an immense challenge to the attacking country (ex: look how difficult it has been to go after al Queda, even though they are a very small, weak organization). The many gunowners and protection agencies that would face an attacking nation would be very effective in repelling the attackers. After spending tons of money fighting us they would be left with a devestated area that wouldn't be of much use to them and they would still have to get a massive government infastructure going to extract our wealth. There is very little to gain from attempting to take over the area and extremely high costs. Also, without our belligerent foreign policy, there would be no reason to attack except for an economic reason which as mentioned above would not be worth it.

Some other great works if you are curious as to how anarchy would work:
For A New Liberty along with other excellent books - http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=85
Practical Anarchy (which also addresses your questions very well) and Everyday Anarchy- http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/

As to why I support Ron Paul, I support anyone who will work towards eliminating the state. Ron Paul is a great step in the right direction. Also, I've only been an anarchist since the beginning of the year but I have liked him for 4 years now.

[Truth Warrior]

You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice.

[Dr.3D]

Were the native Americans anarchists when the settlers from Europe first came over? If so, look what happened to them.

[Truth Warrior]

Were the native Americans anarchists when the settlers from Europe first came over? If so, look what happened to them. Viet Nam? Afghanistan? Iraq? 1776? USSR? Statist genocides? ;)

[krazy kaju]

Anarchy is relatively simple. It's simply a free market in everything. For example, instead of having a public police force and a public court system, you would probably pay a monthly or annual fee for protection by a private police force. If there is somebody robs you and that police force finds the thief, it will probably have to settle the case in court assuming the robber has his own protection agency (and the two private police forces don't want to fight it out for fear of losing customers).

As for being invaded: do you really think anything short of a nuclear war could annihilate an anarchist society? America shat its pants just thinking about invading Japan, where every single citizen could possibly fight American soldiers to the death with sharpened sticks.

If an entire society is armed to the teeth, nobody is going to want to invade them. Furthermore, there wouldn't even be an incentive to invade an anarchist society. Anarchist societies don't declare wars on other countries. We'd be trading with all nations and therefore nobody would want to destroy a valuable trading partner.

Hell, we would probably have a few allies willing to defend us, even though we'd have no government of our own.

[Dr.3D]

Viet Nam? Afghanistan? Iraq? 1776? USSR? Statist genocides? ;)

Didn't answer the question did you?

[Truth Warrior]

Didn't answer the question did you? Well kinda.<IMHO> ;)



Were the native Americans anarchists when the settlers from Europe first came over?


Nope, nomad tribal statists. :D

High tech often defeats low tech.

[krazy kaju]

How exactly were Native Americans like anarchists? They had governing structures, virtually no property rights, etc.

And if you're really trying to argue that Native Americans were driven off their land because they were "anarchists," well, then... do you think they'd do better if they had a government and a military? Or if every single American-Indian household had weapons to fight off invaders?

Again, look at Japan. Vietnam. Iraq. Even a small amount of guerrillas (i.e. Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq) can fight off an infinitely larger force.

[Conza88]

Were the native Americans anarchists when the settlers from Europe first came over? If so, look what happened to them.

Anarcho Communists... :D

Look what happens when you simply add communism to your ideology.. hahah :D



Hell, we would probably have a few allies willing to defend us, even though we'd have no government of our own.

I likes your style.. :D

As for the OP.. I'd describe anarchy - as to where taxes become and remain voluntary... :D

[Truth Warrior]

Anarcho Communists... :D

Look what happens when you simply add communism to your ideology.. hahah :D The Indians had read Bakunin, etc.? :confused:

:D

[Andrew-Austin]

How would the people be able to maintain an anarchy when we live in a world full of statist regimes? What would stop China or Russia or any other country from viewing the lawless region once known as the USA as a land ripe for the pickings and take it over?

We'd be more ripe for the picking now if we did not have nukes.
If China wished to take over the United States, it would be easier to just take over the government system which already controls the entire populace and has its infastructure in place. Empires have always expanding by controling other governments not by pointing guns at each individual in the country.

In a land of anarchy however, there would be no central authority that China could claim in order to make their management of the populace easy/possible.
American's are still fairly armed to the teeth, the weapons are there to provide for a strong guerrila resistance to statist invaders. I just don't see how China could march in and start commanding an armed populace which has had as taste of liberty and free economy.

[mport1]

High tech often defeats low tech.

And you can bet our free market society would be much more high tech than those with a state.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

I have question for people who consider themselves anarchists. How would anarchy work?


It is very simple: Behave yourself.
If you cannot or do not know how to behave yourself, you need government.

If you do not or cannot take care of yourself, you do not necessarily need government, you need to work on your people skills and someone will help you out.

If you cannot behave yourself, do not want to take care of yourself and do not have people skills, I am just asking you to leave the rest of us alone

[ARealConservative]

Frankly, it's a silly notion.

Humans intervene....it's what we do.

Think about the crazy insane guy on the front porch for a second. You want him to have total freedom up to the point that he proves unworthy of it?

Have fun with it, but yes, most of us consider anarchists to be nuts....or high school kids just starting out on a journey of discovery and logic.

[Truth Warrior]

Frankly, it's a silly notion.

Humans intervene....it's what we do.

Think about the crazy insane guy on the front porch for a second. You want him to have total freedom up to the point that he proves unworthy of it?

Have fun with it, but yes, most of us consider anarchists to be nuts....or high school kids just starting out on a journey of discovery and logic.
BARBARIANS! :rolleyes:

:D

[noxagol]

You only prove yourself unworthy of freedom when you start limiting the freedom of others against their will.

Anyone who suggests that anarchy is bad is committing a falacy in thinking that just because it is done this way means it HAS to be done this way.

[ARealConservative]

BARBARIANS! :rolleyes:

:D

yep.barbarians. Animals really.

the sooner the silly anarchists come to terms that we are part of the animal kingdom, the better.

kids don't have the capacity to contract. The decision to allow an 18 year old to contract is totally arbitrary but does that mean 2 month olds should be free to do so? Who decided the issue? you can call the body that decides these issues anything you want, I'll refer to the entity as "government"

[ARealConservative]

You only prove yourself unworthy of freedom when you start limiting the freedom of others against their will.

Anyone who suggests that anarchy is bad is committing a falacy in thinking that just because it is done this way means it HAS to be done this way.

I didn't say bad, I said silly.

Stupid works. Sophomoric is also an apt term. :D

[Truth Warrior]

6,000 YEARS of historic failure.

Government is a "failed" concept.<IMHO> How many chances to succeed should be given to "failed" concepts?

[Fox McCloud]

I've noted that there are many anarchists on this board (which surprises me considering Ron Paul isn't an anarchist), and that has made me think about anarchy.

I think it's safe to say, however, that Ron Paul is, philosophically, a minarchist--that is to say the only thing he supports the government doing is to have a military, courts, and other general forms of defense (police, etc).

That said, ultimately, he's still a Constitutionalist; while he may want there to be no taxation, tariffs, etc, he also recognizes the importance of the Constitution (and therefore, States' rights).

[ARealConservative]

6,000 YEARS of historic failure.

Government is a "failed" concept.<IMHO> How many chances to succeed should be given to "failed" concepts?

this is like saying shit is a failed concept.

Nobody really likes it, but you can't prevent it. Not shitting is an even shittier concept .

[Conza88]

Hmmm... k.

When you have L/libertarians/people in the Ron Paul movement... criticizing the people who want a society without a coercive state... it really begs the question as if it could ever be achieved... It needs an educated public... but damn, that's some high standards we've got to meet... :eek: or... it's just these clowns aren't meeting them.

Go read / listen to Rothbard you fools... then your opinions will be worth more.

[Truth Warrior]

this is like saying shit is a failed concept.

Nobody really likes it, but you can't prevent it. Not shitting is an even shittier concept . If nobody really likes it, then just stop doing THAT shit. DUH!!! :rolleyes:

[ARealConservative]

If nobody really likes it, then just stop doing that shit. DUH!!! :rolleyes:

sorry, we animals can't stop it.

The best we can do is to minimize the mess for a while, until a generation fails to even realize that shit is messy and the problem gets out of hand until the next generation exposed to the shit works to minimize the mess.

In 6,000 years nobody has ever successful prevented a society from shitting. At some point you have to come to terms with the possibility that it isn't within us to do so.

[Andrew-Austin]

Frankly, it's a silly notion.

Humans intervene....it's what we do.

Think about the crazy insane guy on the front porch for a second. You want him to have total freedom up to the point that he proves unworthy of it?

You don't seem to have any idea how an anarcho-capialist society would work.


Hmmm... k.

When you have L/libertarians/people in the Ron Paul movement... criticizing the people who want a society without a coercive state... it really begs the question as if it could ever be achieved... It needs an educated public... but damn, that's some high standards we've got to meet... or... it's just these clowns aren't meeting them.

Go read / listen to Rothbard you fools... then your opinions will be worth more.


this is like saying shit is a failed concept.

Nobody really likes it, but you can't prevent it. Not shitting is an even shittier concept .

Claiming something to be inveitable is not an argument, and no government is not like shitting.

[Truth Warrior]

sorry, we animals can't stop it.

The best we can do is to minimize the mess for a while, until a generation fails to even realize that shit is messy and the problem gets out of hand until the next generation exposed to the shit works to minimize the mess.

In 6,000 years nobody has ever successful prevented a society from shitting. At some point you have to come to terms with the possibility that it isn't within us to do so. The chimps don't "government". :rolleyes: "Society" is merely another "abstraction" concept. :p

[ARealConservative]

You don't seem to have any idea how an anarcho-capialist society would work.

Sadly I do.

It wouldn't work well at all.

Most anarcho-capitalists like to use HOA's as the end-all be all, proving they have no idea how the court system actually works.

[Andrew-Austin]

Sadly I do.



Your posts in this thread say otherwise:



Frankly, it's a silly notion.

Humans intervene....it's what we do.

Think about the crazy insane guy on the front porch for a second. You want him to have total freedom up to the point that he proves unworthy of it?

Have fun with it, but yes, most of us consider anarchists to be nuts....or high school kids just starting out on a journey of discovery and logic.

You know whats even more silly? You displaying this degree of arrogance and disdain for anarchists. Think about it, suppose an anarchist society can never exist/be maintained for long in modern times. Think of what men like Murray Rothbard do to the state. They question every facet of government, debunk fallacies surrounding our "need" for government, they counter the endless amount of politicians who aggrandize the state at every opportunity. Is it really in your best interests to try and dismiss all anarchists in such a way? I'm actually not even that pro-anarchy, but I do appreciate anarcho-capitalist's constant belittling of the state. For every state-aggrandizing politician and pundit, there are still a few men out there who say no to the state. They are the hardcore opposition that is needed to constantly illicit doubt in the minds of men, even if it is true that a healthy/functioning society can not exist without some form of state government.

[ThePieSwindler]

Think about it, suppose an anarchist society can never exist/be maintained for long in modern times. Think of what men like Murray Rothbard do to the state. They question every facet of government, debunk fallacies surrounding our "need" for government, they counter the endless amount of politicians who aggrandize the state at every opportunity. Is it really in your best interests to try and dismiss all anarchists in such a way? I'm actually not even that pro-anarchy, but I do appreciate anarcho-capitalist's constant belittling of the state. For every state-aggrandizing politician and pundit, there are still a few men out there who say no to the state. They are the hardcore opposition that is needed to constantly illicit doubt in the minds of men, even if it is true that a healthy/functioning society can not exist without some form of state government.


Brilliantly stated.

[ARealConservative]

Your posts in this thread say otherwise:

We haven't even began to discuss the problems inherent to anarchism in this thread.



You know whats even more silly? You displaying this degree of arrogance and disdain for anarchists. Think about it, suppose an anarchist society can never exist/be maintained for long in modern times. Think of what men like Murray Rothbard do to the state. They question every facet of government, debunk fallacies surrounding our "need" for government, they counter the endless amount of politicians who aggrandize the state at every opportunity. Is it really in your best interests to try and dismiss all anarchists in such a way? I'm actually not even that pro-anarchy, but I do appreciate anarcho-capitalist's constant belittling of the state. For every state-aggrandizing politician and pundit, there are still a few men out there who say no to the state. They are the hardcore opposition that is needed to constantly illicit doubt in the minds of men, even if it is true that a healthy/functioning society can not exist without some form of state government.

Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies. Do my words seem treasonous to the anarchists :D

[mport1]

Go read / listen to Rothbard...

That, along with Free Talk Live, is what did it for me. At least give it a shot. I was a hard core minarchist for 4 years until I ventured out to explore the idea of anarchism. Can't hurt to give it a good look.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=85

[mport1]

Duplicate post.

[noxagol]

Anarchism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism.

[ARealConservative]

Anarchism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism.

Agreed. Anarchists have shed the skin of hypocrisy prevalent in libertarian circles. They just don't have a functional ideology.

[noxagol]

Agreed. Anarchists have shed the skin of hypocrisy prevalent in libertarian circles. They just don't have a functional ideology.

Which is the very root of anarchism, there is no underlying ideology. It is a system where everyone is able to do their own thing.

[LibertyEagle]

6,000 YEARS of historic failure.

Government is a "failed" concept.<IMHO> How many chances to succeed should be given to "failed" concepts?

When has anarchy been a success?

[krazy kaju]

Agreed. Anarchists have shed the skin of hypocrisy prevalent in libertarian circles. They just don't have a functional ideology.

David Friedman plz, kthxbai!

:)

[ARealConservative]

Which is the very root of anarchism, there is no underlying ideology. It is a system where everyone is able to do their own thing.

Of course there is an underlying ideology.

[krazy kaju]

When has anarchy been a success?

Medieval Ireland, Medieval Iceland, Colonial Pennsylvania 1681-1690.

[ARealConservative]

Colonial Pennsylvania 1681-1690.

An Anarchist society bequeathed by the King. How cute.

http://mises.org/story/1865

[Truth Warrior]

When has anarchy been a success?

Whenever the statist barbarians haven't slaughtered and enslaved them.

When has barbarian government been a success? :p :rolleyes: ( Answer expected! ;) )

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian

[ARealConservative]

Whenever the statist barbarians haven't slaughtered and enslaved them.

When has barbarian government been a success? :p :rolleyes: ( Answer expected! ;) )

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian

you define barbarian, but the definition I need is "success"

[mport1]

Anarchism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism.

+1. Minarchism is also inherently contradictory. Took me awhile to realize this though.

[Truth Warrior]

you define barbarian, but the definition I need is "success" Look it up. DUH!! BTW barbarian, you ain't LibertyEagle. :p

[Truth Warrior]

"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." ;)

[ARealConservative]

Look it up. DUH!! BTW barbarian, you ain't LibertyEagle. :p

success ~ one that succeeds

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Frankly, it's a silly notion.

Humans intervene....it's what we do.

Think about the crazy insane guy on the front porch for a second. You want him to have total freedom up to the point that he proves unworthy of it?

Have fun with it, but yes, most of us consider anarchists to be nuts....or high school kids just starting out on a journey of discovery and logic.

The crazy insane guy on the front porch already has total freedom.
"Dammit Judge, you and your laws. The good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't obey 'em, so what's the point?" (Utah Phillips)

The government only protects the guilty, and they are trying their hardest to make you guilty of something.

[krazy kaju]

An Anarchist society bequeathed by the King. How cute.

http://mises.org/story/1865

Just that the king and even William Penn had no power over Pennsylvania.

[Truth Warrior]

success ~ one that succeeds

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/success :rolleyes:

[noxagol]

1849 California and the "wild west" in general is another example of anarchy in action. Read "33 Questions You're not Suppose to Ask About American History" by Thomas Woods and the other books he says to read in this chapter (which I still need to do myself).

[krazy kaju]

What you say? Anarchy cannot work? (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)

[ARealConservative]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/success :rolleyes:

so how do we decide if a given government achieves success?

[krazy kaju]

1849 California and the "wild west" in general is another example of anarchy in action. Read "33 Questions You're not Suppose to Ask About American History" by Thomas Woods and the other books he says to read in this chapter (which I still need to do myself).

WTF man you beat me to it. :p

[ARealConservative]

So....you guys really think these lists represent anarchy.....

[Truth Warrior]

How many coercive, forceful and violent experiences have you had today, at the hands of your fellow Americans? How about yesterday? And the day before that? (You see where I am going with this, I assume.) Surely you don't believe that all of your peaceful and voluntary interactions and days have only been because there is a government in Washington D.C., your state capital, or local government, that is protecting you, do you?

The vast majority of all human to human interactions worldwide are peaceful and voluntary. My point is that this is true and factual almost every day, almost everywhere on the planet, almost all of the time for almost everyone. Gee, I really want a whole lot more of this, and a whole lot less of force, violence and coercion ( the only tool the government has and uses, EVER ).

Have I missed your perceived anarchistic idealistic utopia here? I don't think so.

[krazy kaju]

So....you guys really think these lists represent anarchy.....

Look man, read the thread. I'm pretty sure I posted an explanation of how anarchist law and order would work as well as posted a link to a real world example. Others also did there part.

Why don't you either:

Agree with us.
or
Disagree and debate us.

There has to be some kind of informal logical fallacy for the kind of BS you're throwing around. I just know it. The kind of "I'll brush what ever you say off because I know better" BS. Anyone know what it's called so I can say it and sound sophisticated?

[dannno]

Anarchy is always a temporary condition, not a long-term solution.

[krazy kaju]

Looking at a list of informal logical fallacies right now.

[ARealConservative]

Look man, read the thread. I'm pretty sure I posted an explanation of how anarchist law and order would work as well as posted a link to a real world example. Others also did there part.

Why don't you either:

Agree with us.
or
Disagree and debate us.

I'm not sure what specifically you gave to debate.

Your examples are weak sauce. They prove only that a minarchy existed in short periods of rapid growth but never last.



There has to be some kind of informal logical fallacy for the kind of BS you're throwing around. I just know it. The kind of "I'll brush what ever you say off because I know better" BS. Anyone know what it's called so I can say it and sound sophisticated?

It's called a condescending attitude, which we share in common.

[Theocrat]

Do you believe humans are basically good or basically evil?

[Truth Warrior]

so how do we decide if a given government achieves success?

Under barbarian standards, by the government body count. ;)

[krazy kaju]

I'm not sure what specifically you gave to debate.

Your examples are weak sauce. They prove only that a minarchy existed in short periods of rapid growth but never last.

Actually, they were proof of anarchy and the only reason they didn't last was because of a statist mindset... and you're completely ignoring the explanation of anarchy posted earlier.

But since I'm such a nice guy, here's (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html) a link to an even better explanation.


It's called a condescending attitude, which we share in common.

I know that, but you're completely ignoring everything presented and putting in little cute quips.

[ARealConservative]

Under barbarian standards, by the government body count. ;)

and by non barbarian standards?

[krazy kaju]

and by non barbarian standards?

That's what I'm talking about.

[Truth Warrior]

Anarchy is always a temporary condition, not a long-term solution.


Government is always a temporary condition, not a long-term solution. ;) :D

[krazy kaju]

Truth Warrior is better at this game than I am.

[Andrew-Austin]

Do you believe humans are basically good or basically evil?

Do theocrats, conservatives, statists, pretend to know the answer to that question?

[Truth Warrior]

and by non barbarian standards?

Since there are NO non-barbarian governments. NADA!

Unless you want to count that they haven't yet killed nor got us ALL killed YET. :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

Do theocrats, conservatives, statists, pretend to know the answer to that question?

That's not answering my question.

[Truth Warrior]

Do you believe humans are basically good or basically evil? If humans are basically good they need no governments. If humans are basically evil they dare not have governments. ;) :D

[krazy kaju]

I don't understand. Does it matter if people are inherently good or evil?

[Theocrat]

If humans are basically good they need no governments. If humans are basically evil they dare not have governments. ;) :D

That's not answering my question.

[ARealConservative]

Actually, they were proof of anarchy and the only reason they didn't last was because of a statist mindset... and you're completely ignoring the explanation of anarchy posted earlier.

Hence the problem. Anarchy is vulnerable to human failings and has no ability to resolve arbitrary issues. It can't last.


I know that, but you're completely ignoring everything presented and putting in little cute quips.

what, you don't like the "Truth Warriorness" to my replies. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior is better at this game than I am. Lotsa practice over lotsa years. ;) :D

Thanks! :)

[Andrew-Austin]

That's not answering my question.

I'd like to see if you can answer your own question, or at least re-frame it in a more graspable way. (BTW, in an earlier post I stated I wasn't really an anarchist..)

Asking for just "good" or "bad" is oversimplifying the matter. Might as well ask if I like hot or cold food more.

[ARealConservative]

That's what I'm talking about.

you have clearly missed the context of these replies

[krazy kaju]

Hence the problem. Anarchy is vulnerable to human failings and has no ability to resolve arbitrary issues. It can't last.

Why not? How does having an involuntary monopoly over such things like courts and police make government run systems stronger? Isn't government even more subject to human failings, because there is no market mechanism to remove or cleanse the system?


what, you don't like the "Truth Warriorness" to my replies. :D

LOL

[Theocrat]

I don't understand. Does it matter if people are inherently good or evil?

It matters because if one believes that humans are basically evil, then I don't see how anarchy will bring about a peaceful and prosperous society with immoral and/or irrational people trying to work together to achieve personal well-being for individuals as well as the common welfare for the entire community.

[Truth Warrior]

Do you believe humans are basically good or basically evil? FALSE DICHOTOMY!

So there. :p

:D

[ARealConservative]

Since there NO non-barbarian governments. NADA!

Unless you want to count that they haven't yet killed nor got us ALL killed YET. :rolleyes:

I asked how you define success.

You replied with some mealy mouthed nonsense about barbarians define it by body count, I am back to asking you - the so called non-barbarian to once again define success in the context of how society is structured.

[krazy kaju]

It matters because if one believes that humans are basically evil, then I don't see how anarchy will bring about a peaceful and prosperous society with immoral and/or irrational people trying to work together to achieve personal well-being for individuals as well as the common welfare for the entire community.

So you're a socialist?

Because if people are evil, immoral, irrational, etc. that is the only thing that makes sense from what you just said, since apparently the gods who rule over us in government know better what to do with our lives than we do, right? They're good, moral, rational, etc. so they should be granted exclusive monopoly over law, order, religion, philosophy, and economy, right???

[Theocrat]

I'd like to see if you can answer your own question, or at least re-frame it in a more graspable way. (BTW, in an earlier post I stated I wasn't really an anarchist..)

Asking for just "good" or "bad" is oversimplifying the matter. Might as well ask if I like hot or cold food more.

By "good" and "evil," I was referring to inherent moral integrity in humans or a lack thereof.

[Theocrat]

FALSE DICHOTOMY!

So there. :p

:D

That's not a false dichotomy. What other options could there be?

[Truth Warrior]

I asked how you define success.

You replied with some mealy mouthed nonsense about barbarians define it by body count, I am back to asking you - the so called non-barbarian to once again define success in the context of how society is structured.

I don't care how bogus "abstractions" are structured. :p

If you don't like my answers, try asking BETTER questions. :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

So you're a socialist?

Because if people are evil, immoral, irrational, etc. that is the only thing that makes sense from what you just said, since apparently the gods who rule over us in government know better what to do with our lives than we do, right? They're good, moral, rational, etc. so they should be granted exclusive monopoly over law, order, religion, philosophy, and economy, right???

This is getting away from my question, but I'll have you know that I'm definitely no socialist. I believe that civil government is necessary, but it must needs be limited in its scope and power.

Would you like to answer my question now?

[ARealConservative]

I don't care how bogus "abstractions" are structured. :p

If you don't like my answers, try asking BETTER questions. :rolleyes:


You claimed these bogus "abstractions" a failure but refuse to define success.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

That's not a false dichotomy. What other options could there be? Suggestion: Think some more about it. ;)

Hint: What other color options are there between black and white?

:)

[Andrew-Austin]

It matters because if one believes that humans are basically evil, then I don't see how anarchy will bring about a peaceful and prosperous society with immoral and/or irrational people trying to work together to achieve personal well-being for individuals as well as the common welfare for the entire community.

I find difficulty even believing in the concept of evil. To me the word has this mystic taint to it, it mystifies human behavior. So no, I don't find it reasonable at all to call people basically evil/bad. Nor does it sound all that correct to call people "basically good". Prone towards acting socially, cooperating with one another, and acting in their self interest, yes.


That's not a false dichotomy. What other options could there be?

Might as well ask me if I like hot or cold food.

[Truth Warrior]

You claimed these bogus "abstractions" a failure but refuse to define success.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: We're talking "society". Check your post, barbarian. :rolleyes:

"Success" previously defined, barbarian. :rolleyes:

[krazy kaju]

This is getting away from my question, but I'll have you know that I'm definitely no socialist. I believe that civil government is necessary, but it must needs be limited in its scope and power.

No, it's not getting away from your question. Your central premise seems to be that humans are evil, ergo the need for civil government. Well, if human evilness is a justification for government monopoly over law, order, and defense, isn't it justification for monopoly in everything else?

I mean, those evil farmers are selling wheat to us at a profit! That's evil, isn't it?

Also, I think your very premise is ignorant of what anarchism is. For example, you stated previously in this thread that "if humans are not good they cannot live peacefully in anarchy" or something like that. You act as if you had not read this thread and therefore think that anarchy is somehow a society without law.


Would you like to answer my question now?

Your question is ridiculous. Humans are neither good nor evil. The question is loaded with so many false assumptions it's beyond me. What do you even define as evil? Is profit evil?

Maybe you are a socialist then?

[ARealConservative]

We're talking "society". Check your post, barbarian. :rolleyes:

"Success" previously defined, barbarian. :rolleyes:

typical.

You claimed 6,000 years of failure for government, I am asking you to define success.

cut,paste, or 10 word replies does not a debate make.

[Theocrat]

I find difficulty even believing in the concept of evil. To me the word has this mystic taint to it, it mystifies human behavior. So no, I don't find it reasonable at all to call people basically evil/bad. Nor does it sound all that correct to call people "basically good". Prone towards acting socially, cooperating with one another, and acting in their self interest, yes.

Are the things you listed ("prone towards acting socially," "cooperating with one another," and "acting in their self interest") good or evil in and of themselves? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps I can conclude that you don't have a moral opinion of good and evil towards what dictators like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin did to millions of people in their regimes. So what happens to people in a society of anarchy just happens, and it's neither good nor evil, right?

[krazy kaju]

Why don't you read this (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html)?

[Truth Warrior]

typical.

You claimed 6,000 years of failure for government, I am asking you to define success.

cut,paste, or 10 word replies does not a debate make.
I did. :rolleyes:

You ain't wothy of debate, I'm just TEACHING you. :p

[ARealConservative]

I did. :rolleyes:

You ain't wothy of debate, I'm just TEACHING you. :p

I find it highly unlikely that you have swayed a single person towards your cause.

But hey, you generally get what you pay for :D

[Theocrat]

No, it's not getting away from your question. Your central premise seems to be that humans are evil, ergo the need for civil government. Well, if human evilness is a justification for government monopoly over law, order, and defense, isn't it justification for monopoly in everything else?

I mean, those evil farmers are selling wheat to us at a profit! That's evil, isn't it?

Also, I think your very premise is ignorant of what anarchism is. For example, you stated previously in this thread that "if humans are not good they cannot live peacefully in anarchy" or something like that. You act as if you had not read this thread and therefore think that anarchy is somehow a society without law.



Your question is ridiculous. Humans are neither good nor evil. The question is loaded with so many false assumptions it's beyond me. What do you even define as evil? Is profit evil?

Maybe you are a socialist then?

You are arguing against a strawman, for I never said nor assumed that government should have a monopoly over anything. That's your presumption of my views of government.

I also find it interesting that you used a word in an example you gave of farmers and profit for which you say you can't even define--"evil." It seems very telling to me that you do have an implicit assumption of what "evil" is, all the while trying to evade using it when it comes to answering my question. If you can't define what "good" and "evil" are, then I suppose you can't derive values from anything in the universe, and thus, what is the case is just what it is, neither fair nor foul.

[Truth Warrior]

I find it highly unlikely that you have swayed a single person towards your cause.

But hey, you generally get what you pay for :D You'd be surprised. ;)

[ARealConservative]

You'd be surprised. ;)

I sure would be

If you could get a penny to teach this, I would be amazed beyond belief.

[Truth Warrior]

I sure would be

If you could get a penny to teach this, I would be amazed beyond belief. Not my problem. :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

Why don't you read this (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html)?

Law necessitates and implies that humans need to be governed somehow, and that's why I asked the anarchists whether they believe humans are basically good or evil. Why have law if there is neither good nor evil? Law means that there's a standard of good by which people should live by, and this instantiates that humans have some level of evilness which needs to match a standard of goodness by which the law is founded on.

Please define "anarchy" for me.

[krazy kaju]

You are arguing against a strawman, for I never said nor assumed that government should have a monopoly over anything. That's your presumption of my views of government.

Yes you did. You said you support civil government. That is a monopoly over police, courts, and national defense.

If you're against monopoly, you're an anarchist (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html).


I also find it interesting that you used a word in an example you gave of farmers and profit for which you say you can't even define--"evil." It seems very telling to me that you do have an implicit assumption of what "evil" is, all the while trying to evade using it when it comes to answering my question. If you can't define what "good" and "evil" are, then I suppose you can't derive values from anything in the universe, and thus, what is the case is just what it is, neither fair nor foul.

No, you see, you're arguing that only some kind of holy entity we call government has the right to dictate what is legal and illegal. That assumption implicitly tells me you have something against profit in law and order. If you're against private courts, why aren't you against private farmers? Or private automakers?

[krazy kaju]

Law necessitates and implies that humans need to be governed somehow, and that's why I asked the anarchists whether they believe humans are basically good or evil. Why have law if there is neither good nor evil? Law means that there's a standard of good by which people should live by, and this instantiates that humans have some level of evilness which needs to match a standard of goodness by which the law is founded on.

Please define "anarchy" for me.

Anarchy is defined here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html). No unwilled monopoly over anything. It would be much more conductive to the debate if you read the link.

[Theocrat]

Yes you did. You said you support civil government. That is a monopoly over police, courts, and national defense.

If you're against monopoly, you're an anarchist (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html).

Perhaps we're just arguing semantics here, but my definition of "civil government" doesn't include a monopoly over police, courts, and national defense. Besides, this is getting away from my initial question. My intent was not to give my definition of what civil government is, but rather, it was to ask a question which underlines assumptions about the nature of government or lack thereof. So once again, you're arguing against a strawman.


No, you see, you're arguing that only some kind of holy entity we call government has the right to dictate what is legal and illegal. That assumption implicitly tells me you have something against profit in law and order. If you're against private courts, why aren't you against private farmers? Or private automakers?

I haven't argued anything of what you previously mentioned, so once again you're presuming on my views of government where I haven't given any evidence to suggest or support what you assume. Once again, I believe that civil government needs to be limited, and it should have no interference with private profits of businesses.

[Andrew-Austin]

Theocrat you seem to have such a horridly low estimate of man's nature, I wish you believed in man as much as you believed in a God deity. Its so fucking hard to communicate with you the way you frame questions and make unexplained presumptions. I'll probably end up leaving it to someone else to try and sort through your rants.



Are the things you listed ("prone towards acting socially," "cooperating with one another," and "acting in their self interest") good or evil in and of themselves? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps I can conclude that you don't have a moral opinion of good and evil towards what dictators like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin did to millions of people in their regimes. So what happens to people in a society of anarchy just happens, and it's neither good nor evil, right?

Haha I wonder if that counts as fulfilling Godwin's law, damn you have outdone yourself with that.

If your some wise philosopher or expert on human nature. Why not answer your own question, and thus explain how theocracy is the best option we have? I'm almost certain your answer would be laughable.

Not feeling comfortable enough to say if mankind is wholly "good" or "bad", does not equate to having no standard of morality. Why don't you leave that question for God to decide. I feel uncomfortable as it is judging an individual to be good or bad, but all mankind?



"prone towards acting socially," "cooperating with one another," and "acting in their self interest"

I can say that those things are generally good, but it still does not answer you question.

[Theocrat]

Anarchy is defined here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html). No unwilled monopoly over anything. It would be much more conductive to the debate if you read the link.

Is efficiency good or evil? Why should humans strive for an "efficient society" if they themselves cannot define what is "good" or "evil" (as you've claimed in an earlier post)?

[Theocrat]

Theocrat you seem to have such a horridly low estimate of man's nature, I wish you believed in man as much as you believed in a God deity. Its so fucking hard to communicate with you the way you frame questions and make unexplained presumptions.



Haha I wonder if that counts as fulfilling Godwin's law, damn you have outdone yourself with that.

If your some wise philosopher or expert on human nature. Why not answer your own question, and thus explain how theocracy is the best option we have? I'm almost certain your answer would be laughable.

Not feeling comfortable enough to say if mankind is wholly "good" or "bad", does not equate to having no standard of morality. Why don't you leave that question for God to decide.



I can say that those things are generally good,

You still haven't answered my questions, which are pretty simple. Are there standards of morality that humans should live by, and if so, are those standards good or evil? Do you know what morality is?

[Andrew-Austin]

You still haven't answered my questions, which are pretty simple. Are there standards of morality that humans should live by, and if so, are those standards good or evil? Do you know what morality is?

That was not your original question bro.. Don't mock me, I'm not a barbarian.

Yes there are standards in which men should live by, standards that enrich our own lives and the lives of others. What now? What presumptions of yours am I missing?

[krazy kaju]

Perhaps we're just arguing semantics here, but my definition of "civil government" doesn't include a monopoly over police, courts, and national defense.

Then you're an anarchist by definition.


Besides, this is getting away from my initial question. My intent was not to give my definition of what civil government is, but rather, it was to ask a question which underlines assumptions about the nature of government or lack thereof. So once again, you're arguing against a strawman.

On the contrary, it seems to me that you're arguing against a strawman. Good or evil have nothing to do with anarchy at all, just as good or evil has nothing to do with a good government.

And since you've said you're against monopoly anything, you are, actually, an anarchist. Maybe you just don't know it yet.


I haven't argued anything of what you previously mentioned, so once again you're presuming on my views of government where I haven't given any evidence to suggest or support what you assume. Once again, I believe that civil government needs to be limited, and it should have no interference with private profits of businesses.

Government inherently means a monopoly over law and defense, which is a limit on which sectors you can make a profit.

Furthermore, aren't you a supporter of Baldwin (protectionism)?


Is efficiency good or evil? Why should humans strive for an "efficient society" if they themselves cannot define what is "good" or "evil" (as you've claimed in an earlier post)?

1. It's clear you didn't get past the title, so go read the article.

2. Are you somehow implying that since I'm unwilling to take up your question whether humans are inherently good or evil (putting all humans into such a generalized category is a huge mistake) government is necessary? Not very cogent, IMO.

[krazy kaju]

Also, for everyone else, read this (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html) for an understanding of anarchism.

[mport1]

Do you believe humans are basically good or basically evil?

In any of these scenarios, government is a terrible solution. Anarchy is the best system.


If people are generally peaceful, we don’t need a state – and if they are generally violent, we can’t allow a state to exist, because giving violent people a monopoly always results in the utter destruction of civil society.
Stefan Molyneux - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux5.html

[Conza88]

And the Anarchists take the win...!

Glad I was asleep through that mild shitstorm.. :D

Who would have thought... Ron Paul supporters :confused: defending the state... :rolleyes:

[Agent Chameleon]

Crap I have a lot of reading of posts to catch up on. @_@

Thanks everybody for the insight. :)

[ARealConservative]

And the Anarchists take the win...!

Glad I was asleep through that mild shitstorm.. :D

Who would have thought... Ron Paul supporters :confused: defending the state... :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[Number19]

...Or more specifically, lets pretend that there's an anarchistic revolution launched in America and the country becomes an anarchy. How would the people be able to maintain an anarchy when we live in a world full of statist regimes? What would stop China or Russia or any other country from viewing the lawless region once known as the USA as a land ripe for the pickings and take it over?...


...One major factor would be the structure of the country. Without a state apparatus to take over, conquest would be very difficult. There is no central controlling agency that can be conquered to then turn in on the people...The vast, sprawled population of people would pose an immense challenge to the attacking country (ex: look how difficult it has been to go after al Queda, even though they are a very small, weak organization). The many gunowners and protection agencies that would face an attacking nation would be very effective in repelling the attackers. After spending tons of money fighting us they would be left with a devestated area that wouldn't be of much use to them and they would still have to get a massive government infastructure going to extract our wealth. There is very little to gain from attempting to take over the area and extremely high costs. Also, without our belligerent foreign policy, there would be no reason to attack except for an economic reason which as mentioned above would not be worth it...


...In a land of anarchy however, there would be no central authority that China could claim in order to make their management of the populace easy/possible...An anarchy could not stand up to a serious mass migration. Major episodes in history have been to acquire resources and control of an existing population is not a factor.

If I were a modern day Ghengis Khan, I would build an armada of the most modern technology, using the resources of my empire. I would land on the California coast and establish a beach head. I would then move to the area I wanted to occupy and simply kill every man, rape all the women and possibly keep the youngest children to assimilate into the new culture. Or maybe not - kill all the babies, also. I would then then bring ship loads of settlers from the home country.

It doesn't take long for a native population to learn the futility of resistance against a superior force. Indiscriminate slaughter teaches a harsh lesson.

Regardless of eventual outcome, it would most certainly not be a very easy existence for an anarchist resistance facing such a challenge.

[Truth Warrior]

An anarchy could not stand up to a serious mass migration. Major episodes in history have been to acquire resources and control of an existing population is not a factor.

If I were a modern day Ghengis Khan, I would build an armada of the most modern technology, using the resources of my empire. I would land on the California coast and establish a beach head. I would then move to the area I wanted to occupy and simply kill every man, rape all the women and possibly keep the youngest children to assimilate into the new culture. Or maybe not - kill all the babies, also. I would then then bring ship loads of settlers from the home country.

It doesn't take long for a native population to learn the futility of resistance against a superior force. Indiscriminate slaughter teaches a harsh lesson.

Regardless of eventual outcome, it would most certainly not be a very easy existence for an anarchist resistance facing such a challenge.
And yet the Empires of Rome, the British, the Spanish, Genghis Khan, Alexander, Napoleon, Attila, Hitler, Stalin, etc. have ALL collapsed into the barbaric ash heap of human history.

As would your's.<IMHO> ;)

[TurtleBurger]

Do you believe humans are basically good or basically evil?

Human beings are a combination of good and evil, some leaning more in one direction than the other. People who are more evil tend to either crime or government careers. Haven't you ever noticed how the people who are the most successful in their government careers are the ones who are the most scandal-ridden? Probably the majority of members of Congress are involved in some sexual or personal financial wrongdoing. Bill Clinton didn't invent intern-boffing; I read an article a long time ago (I can't remember the source) that talked about how prevalent sexual relations between politicians and interns are. In my experience, the problem isn't nearly so intense among Americans as a whole. The level of morality in Washington DC is far lower than that of average Americans. Why is it? I'd say it's because people drawn to politics are those with the most insatiable lust for power over others, which is usually an evil thing in itself, and one powerful evil can give birth to all the others.
Also note that every good impulse of government comes from the people. Government doesn't take charge of feeding the hungry because government is generous and the common people are greedy. Feeding the hungry is something that people generally want to see done, and so government jumps into that gap to make itself look good, although it does it in such a bent way that in the long run the hungry may have been better off starving than accepting the government's "goodness". In the natural course of events, without government interference, good people will fill that role themselves, with private charity, in a way that does not destroy the human dignity of the recipient. And that's just one example; the good things that government provides, be it charity for the unfortunate, defense against criminals, arbitration of disputes, etc, all of these are provided because people demand them. Government provides them but does so in the most inefficient and immoral means possible.

[Number19]

And yet the Empires of Rome, the British, the Spanish, Genghis Khan, Alexander, Napoleon, Attila, Hitler, Stalin, etc. have ALL collapsed into the barbaric ash heap of human history.

As would your's.<IMHO> ;)Did you make a point? I don't know what it is. The question being asked and answered is whether an anarchist society could effectively withstand aggression from other, militaristic societies - not whether empires eventually fall.

[Truth Warrior]

Did you make a point? I don't know what it is. The question being asked and answered is whether an anarchist society could effectively withstand aggression from other, militaristic societies - not whether empires eventually fall.
Yes.

[Truth Warrior]

[Origin: 1530–40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless (an- an- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=an-)1 + arch(ós) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-y)3http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

Online Etymology Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/etymon.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=anarchy&ia=etymon) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy#sharethis)
anarchy
1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archon)). Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

[Truth Warrior]

"As much as I hate to say this, sheep NEED shepherds and slaves NEED masters. However, I'll be damned if a wolf like me is told that I need one when I am already MY OWN master! If you still think that voting is the only way of obtaining freedom, fine. I can't tell you what to do or what decisions to make. If you want to be lead by the hand like a little toddler by some capricious and parasitic "government," that's your choice. Not mine. perfectly honest with you, the saddest thing I have to live with is the fact that many people are still in the early stages of human evolutional development, thus NEEDING some kind of "guidance" from an omnipotent and infallible entity of some kind, be it religious or non-religious."

Extract from:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603041641/http://www.nogov4me.net/whyvoting.htm

[Number19]

Yes.No.

[Truth Warrior]

No. :rolleyes:

[ARealConservative]

No.

6,258 posts without actually ever saying anything. :D

[klamath]

Though I totally love the concept of anarchy it is a state that can only exist in theory not in reality. To all the governments in world history none ever fell to an anarchy. They may have fallen to small groups of organized fighters but that is not anarchy.

The original question was how would you maintain an area of land that was once the United States in a state of anarchy with the world full of organized governments. You wouldn't.

300 million individuals fighting an organized invading chinese army backed by a country of 1.2 billion, would fall like grass in a mower. The Chinese have more people than they want. Individuals standing in their way of huge coal reserves, great fertile farmland and 3 million acres of other natural resources will only require a quick burst of 25 MM depleted uranium tracers to blow them into bloody pieces. Every last one of those 300 million individuals can die for all they care. How many of your individual anarchists can afford the $500,000 for a bunker busting bomb? How many could afford even one of the 1 billion dollar bomb delivery platforms?

I wish it weren't so, but it is.

[Andrew-Austin]

Why do people keep waving around a hypothetical Chinese invasion. It would not happen, its not going to happen.

[Number19]

Actually, I lost interest in this word play back about 30 years ago. This world will not see an anarchist society in my lifetime. Perhaps, in 200 years, if global warming wrecks havoc on geo-political divisions, and the world goes to hell-in-a-hand basket, perhaps then. Albert Jay Nock wrote that only during times of extreme duress will populations consider radical change. But more likely it will be some form of one world government coming out of this chaos. At that point, an anarchist society will be even further from reality than it is now - pushed a thousand years into the science fiction future. There's entertainment value in the discussion, but otherwise, what's the point?

[Number19]

Why do people keep waving around a hypothetical Chinese invasion. It would not happen, its not going to happen.You can't reasonably assume this. If global warming is a fact - a natural event, not human induced - then who can say today what the social/political consequence will be?

[klamath]

Why do people keep waving around a hypothetical Chinese invasion. It would not happen, its not going to happen.

The Chinese invasion is just a name for any organized government in the world that would secure these resouces.

I would like to see some evidence why it wouldn't happen? The worlds entire history has been exactly this way.