Anarchists cause tyranny. Conservatives will have to fight them.

[Chosen]

Of course anarchy to the logical and pragmatic is nothing more than a repository for the vain who can read and write. It really has no place in any civilization other than to foster decay, because it cannot exist without a regimented structure of comparison.

Anarchy makes perfect sense if humans weren't actually human.

Points on human tendency to organization:

1. Our closest relatives, chimps and gorillas, naturally live in small family centered groups. This points to a similar nature in us.

2. Of the 200,000 year history of humanity, 190,000 years of it was spent in small nomadic groups of hunter-gatherers.

3. The growth of agricultural societies was usually not a matter of hunter-gatherers adopting sedentary lifestyles, but of the growth of the population and specialization of sedentary groups over-running hunter gatherer communities.

MAILING LIST OBSERVATIONS:


"
Major cities and larger communities also have very small "sub-cultural" groups which act within the larger. Even more, these sub-cultures are broken up into smaller groups of cliques. Because of our need to be near water and a good food supply, have certain types of land for cultivating crops and enough rain fall to sustain a healthy, refreshed water supply, we have had to move into cities of larger population. This forced an evolution of sorts but still has not removed our small community habits as we still try to keep things small and close. I may know hundreds of people but I only spend my time, on average, with a small number of them."

Anarchy is supremely easy to accomplish as a condition, impossible to establish as a way.

Anarchy would result in the breaking of laws and mob rule. In defense of this common sense, anarchists most often declare:

People will not violate contractual agreements because they will not be able to enter into further contracts.

The best response:

How many people now violate contractual agreements, even with laws that will punish them for violating them? Do you think without law it will be better? Well, let's look at the market we do have which is the best example of this type of system, the black market. The buying and selling of illegal substances and goods is done on a market that really has no overlying system of rule or form of governing (maybe in certain areas that are controlled by powerful criminal groups they do have something like this). Without the state's knowledge and consent of these transactions though, the people operating on the black market resort to violence in order to enforce their contracts. Still, the fear of death by revenge for taking delivery of drugs without payment is not enough to stop many people. They do not care about breaking contracts, because in such a large market, there are plenty of other people to go to who will not be aware of this reputation.

We have enough contract violations and crime even with rule of law; to think that this will somehow improve when we remove rule of law is just ridiculous. Everyone out there is not as good as you might want to believe. Take away law, and they will be out looting, raping, and killing at the first opportunity. Look at what happened in New Orleans during/after Katrina...

Anarchy only produces tyranny. What we are now seeing is similar to what was seen at the beginning of the last century leading up to WW1. Anarchists emerge in turmoil and usually form the death throws of a society. Their lack of an understanding of order paves the way for tyranny to take hold. That is why we must resist the anarchist as we do the authoritarian collectivist. Anarchy is a literary post modern infection that allows the virus of oppression to take hold. I would suggest that real Conservatives do everything in their power to disrupt them.

[Truth Warrior]

"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America." -- Lew Rockwell

[Truth Warrior]

Of course anarchy to the logical and pragmatic is nothing more than a repository for the vain who can read and write. It really has no place in any civilization other than to foster decay, because it cannot exist without a regimented structure of comparison.

Anarchy makes perfect sense if humans weren't actually human.

Points on human tendency to organization:

1. Our closest relatives, chimps and gorillas, naturally live in small family centered groups. This points to a similar nature in us.

2. Of the 200,000 year history of humanity, 190,000 years of it was spent in small nomadic groups of hunter-gatherers.

3. The growth of agricultural societies was usually not a matter of hunter-gatherers adopting sedentary lifestyles, but of the growth of the population and specialization of sedentary groups over-running hunter gatherer communities.

MAILING LIST OBSERVATIONS:


Anarchy is supremely easy to accomplish as a condition, impossible to establish as a way.

Anarchy would result in the breaking of laws and mob rule. In defense of this common sense, anarchists most often declare:


The best response:


Anarchy only produces tyranny. What we are now seeing is similar to what was seen at the beginning of the last century leading up to WW1. Anarchists emerge in turmoil and usually form the death throws of a society. Their lack of an understanding of order paves the way for tyranny to take hold. That is why we must resist the anarchist as we do the authoritarian collectivist. Anarchy is a literary post modern infection that allows the virus of oppression to take hold. I would suggest that real Conservatives do everything in their power to disrupt them.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

[constituent]

Anarchy only produces tyranny.

No, tyrants produce tyranny.




authoritarian collectivist.

Yes you are.

[Conza88]

I'm glad I'm not an anarchist then.

Proud NON-ARCHIST and Anarcho-Capitalist here... :cool:

[Truth Warrior]

I'm glad I'm not an anarchist then.

Proud NON-ARCHIST and Anarcho-Capitalist here... :cool: You gots SHEPHERDS? :D

[BuddyRey]

Chosen, do you ever concentrate any of your energies on fighting the people actually destroying this country, or would you rather focus on people who share your viewpoint 75% of the time?

I'm one of those Anarchists you berate, but I've never gone after you or been nasty in any way. Why do you insist on constantly baiting us?

[Theocrat]

I'm glad I'm not an anarchist then.

Proud NON-ARCHIST and Anarcho-Capitalist here... :cool:

What, pray tell, is the difference between an anarchist and a "non-archist"?

[LibertyEagle]

Buddy, you don't bait people, but there are plenty others who are. People get tired of being bashed for believing in the same things that Ron Paul does.

[Young Paleocon]

Conservatism is not a means to an end, it merely tries to slow down the advance of socialism rather going in the opposite direction. It seems it is even failing in it's limited objective.

[sailor]

Buddy, you don't bait people, but there are plenty others who are. People get tired of being bashed for believing in the same things that Ron Paul does.

You`re just again showing your double standard. Look again at who is the topic starter.

[sailor]

Chosen is pretty much a fisherman in my eyes. All he does is spams his crap all day long hoping for bites.

[LibertyEagle]

You`re just again showing your double standard. Look again at who is the topic starter.

And two wrongs make a right, in your book?

[t0rnado]

2. Of the 200,000 year history of humanity, 190,000 years of it was spent in small nomadic groups of hunter-gatherers.

190,000 years were spent accomplishing nothing. Individuals have been successful in helping humanity with scientific advances, not collective idiots.

[Theocrat]

You anarchy utopians need to wake up to reality. There is no way America is going to become an anarchical society. There are too many conservatives, liberals, and libertarians who believe in the legitimacy of civil government. Many of them are willing to fight for their lives to ensure we have some form of a civilized society under a government which protects God-given rights and liberties. So you all just need to give up with the "no government" nonsense, or just move to Somalia.

[Truth Warrior]

You anarchy utopians need to wake up to reality. There is no way America is going to become an anarchical society. There are too many conservatives, liberals, and libertarians who believe in the legitimacy of civil government. Many of them are willing to fight for their lives to ensure we have some form of a civilized society under a government which protects God-given rights and liberties. So you all just need to give up with the "no government" nonsense, or just move to Somalia.

Human Government Is A Rejection Of God (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/israelking.html)

[Dripping Rain]

You anarchy utopians need to wake up to reality. There is no way America is going to become an anarchical society. There are too many conservatives, liberals, and libertarians who believe in the legitimacy of civil government. Many of them are willing to fight for their lives to ensure we have some form of a civilized society under a government which protects God-given rights and liberties. So you all just need to give up with the "no government" nonsense, or just move to Somalia.

+2012

Anarchy is just a station en route to another form of tyranny

[LibertyEagle]

Chosen is pretty much a fisherman in my eyes. All he does is spams his crap all day long hoping for bites.

And somehow you've missed "Truth" Warrior's many threads doing the same?

[Truth Warrior]

+2012

Anarchy is just a station en route to another form of tyranny

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

[LibertyEagle]

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

Which is why our Founders designed the Constitution. Unfortunately, we don't hold our end up, which is why we're in this mess.

[Truth Warrior]

Which is why our Founders designed the Constitution. Unfortunately, we don't hold our end up, which is why we're in this mess.

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

Let's see now, who should I believe Lew or you? It all comes down to EARNED credibility. I'll take Lew. ;)

[Theocrat]

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

Let's see now, who should I believe Lew or you? It all comes down to EARNED credibility. I'll take Lew. ;)

I'm sorry, but I missed any reference in that quote where Lew said that America should become an anarchy instead of a constitutional republic. How does his quote in any way support your position that we shouldn't have any civil government whatsoever? :confused:

[Conza88]

What, pray tell, is the difference between an anarchist and a "non-archist"?

One believes in the non aggression axiom + private property rights.

The other does not. The other is a socialist and hates the state because they are retardedly deluded and think the State PROTECTS property, ROFL.

[Theocrat]

One believes in the non aggression axiom + private property rights.

The other does not. The other is a socialist and hates the state because they are retardedly deluded and think the State PROTECTS property, ROFL.

What is your source for those definitions?

[Truth Warrior]

I'm sorry, but I missed any reference in that quote where Lew said that America should become an anarchy instead of a constitutional republic. How does his quote in any way support your position that we shouldn't have any civil government whatsoever? :confused:

Your Bible says that, at least for the folks like you.<IMHO> ;)

Romans 13, 1 Peter, And The Proper Relationship Between The Christian And The State (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/romans13.html)

[Young Paleocon]

I just want to know the criteria for conservatism. Strict constructionist view of Constitution? Social warriors who would sooner use the Constitution for their own ends rather than abide by the 9th and 10th amendments and utilize federalism?

[Dripping Rain]

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

so good men dont need governance. fine with me. but most people are looking for governance. most people are followers not leaders. most people are looking for a King or a leader. If good men fail to step up to the plate then they will allow the evil men to govern as they wish and use the followers against the good men.
thats why people such as Ron Paul or Larry McDonald stepped upmto the plate. thats why good men like Lew Rockwell were once Ron Paul's Chief of Staff which destroys any myth that Lew Rockwell is an anarchist

[Theocrat]

Your Bible says that, at least for the folks like you.<IMHO> ;)

Romans 13, 1 Peter, And The Proper Relationship Between The Christian And The State (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/romans13.html)

That doesn't answer my question. Try again.

[Truth Warrior]

so good men dont need governance. fine with me. but most people are looking for governance. most people are followers not leaders. most people are looking for a King or a leader. If good men fail to step up to the plate then they will allow the evil men to govern as they wish and use the followers against the good men.
thats why people such as Ron Paul or Larry McDonald stepped upmto the plate. thats why good men like Lew Rockwell were once Ron Paul's Chief of Staff Ron and Larry did not a COTUS make. ;)

MOST people just need to WAKE UP and GROW UP and GET REAL!

"Of course I'm cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood. Ultimately, however, I do not believe that politics offers a way out. What we need is a new consciousness concerning the idea of human liberty." -- Lew Rockwell

[Conza88]

What is your source for those definitions?

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

And also reality. Anarchists are traditionally socialists. You know how anarchy is synonymous with Chaos? Yeaaaah, that's because socialists don't respect the non aggression axiom and private property.

You think Anarcho-Capitalists are going to go round, rioting in the streets? If so, then and anyone else who does, is a fucken idiot. :o

Anarchists are FTL.

Non-Archists / Anarcho-Capitalists are FTW.

[heavenlyboy34]

important reading for the STILL clueless RPF statists:cool:-


What Is Anarchy? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)

[Truth Warrior]

I just want to know the criteria for conservatism. Strict constructionist view of Constitution? Social warriors who would sooner use the Constitution for their own ends rather than abide by the 9th and 10th amendments and utilize federalism?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservatism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservatism)

or

"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America." -- Lew Rockwell

Your choice, or not. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

important reading for the STILL clueless RPF statists:cool:-


What Is Anarchy? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html) :eek: You don't REALLY expect ANY of them to ACTUALLY mouse click a link, read AND think about it, do you? :D

< LMAO! >

[Young Paleocon]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservatism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservatism)

or

"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America." -- Lew Rockwell

Your choice, or not. ;)

Does Lew concur with Hayek's "Burkean Whig" position?

[Truth Warrior]

Does Lew concur with Hayek's "Burkean Whig" position? I don't know. Why not just ask him? I'm pretty sure that he likes Hayek, as do I. ;) Which BTW, does NOT imply TOTAL agreement, on every point. :)

[tremendoustie]

I'm going to say this once, I'm not going to get into a big argument.

For everyone scared to death of "anarchists", by which you mean voluntaryists, I'm going to tell you what it's about.

Not initiating violence. So, all those laws against violent crime are fine -- they're about defending against violence. The only problem is funding: People should not be forced to pay for this service against their will. That's why voluntaryists believe in protection services that can be subscribed to voluntarily.

Some of you think this it's vastly different. It's not. Voluntaryists believe in societal order and rules as well. They just don't think people should be forced to pay for one service, even if they'd like to opt out, or subscribe to another. Do you really think it would be right to force those who wish to opt out of your government system, to pay into it anyway? Voluntaryists say no -- that's the only difference. If you think about it, you'll realize that this force is not really necessary anyway -- people will want to be protected.


For the people still calling themselves "anarchists", please stop. People don't get it, you're just being confusing and scary to them, because to them this means chaos and violence.

Please, please call yourselves voluntaryists, or something like that -- emphasize that you want VOLUNTARY government, not NO government. Yes, I agree that these are the same thing, because by definition government is involuntary and funded by the routine use of violence. But which sounds more scary -- and which communicates what you mean better? "No government", which most people hear as "chaos", or "voluntary government", which means order and peace -- and no systemic aggressive violence.

I encourage you to immediately correct someone calling you an anarchist. It's just not a good foot to start on.


Now, to everyone. Stop bickering. Really think about it, you'll realize they're but a hair's difference between a minarchist and a voluntaryist -- and if the minarchist wants to fund his "government" voluntarily, rather than through extortion, then there's no difference at all!

We all want much smaller government. Bicker if you must once we've got a constitutional government, but it's just foolish and counterproductive before then. Let's work together now, please.

[Original_Intent]

I am for theocracy myself, and look forward to God coming to rule in person.

In the meantime, a return to limited Constitutional government is the closest we can hope to get to the government leaving us alone.

[Truth Warrior]

I am for theocracy myself, and look forward to God coming to rule in person.

In the meantime, a return to limited Constitutional government is the closest we can hope to get to the government leaving us alone. How are you going to get there, AND keep it? :rolleyes:


"Any 'system' that is crucially dependent on human reliability is inherently unreliable."

[Original_Intent]

How are you going to get there, AND keep it? :rolleyes:


"Any 'system' that is crucially dependent on human reliability is inherently unreliable."

I have been asking that question of "voluntaryists" for some time now.

[heavenlyboy34]

I like to use the word "autarchist" myself. :D On RPF, though, I use "anarchist" in debates just for the sake of the debate. ttyl. ~hugs~


I'm going to say this once, I'm not going to get into a big argument.

For everyone scared to death of "anarchists", by which you mean voluntaryists, I'm going to tell you what it's about.

Not initiating violence. So, all those laws against violent crime are fine -- they're about defending against violence. The only problem is funding: People should not be forced to pay for this service against their will. That's why voluntaryists believe in protection services that can be subscribed to voluntarily.

Some of you think this it's vastly different. It's not. Voluntaryists believe in societal order and rules as well. They just don't think people should be forced to pay for one service, even if they'd like to opt out, or subscribe to another. Do you really think it would be right to force those who wish to opt out of your government system, to pay into it anyway? Voluntaryists say no -- that's the only difference. If you think about it, you'll realize that this force is not really necessary anyway -- people will want to be protected.


For the people still calling themselves "anarchists", please stop. People don't get it, you're just being confusing and scary to them, because to them this means chaos and violence.

Please, please call yourselves voluntaryists, or something like that -- emphasize that you want VOLUNTARY government, not NO government. Yes, I agree that these are the same thing, because by definition government is involuntary and funded by the routine use of violence. But which sounds more scary -- and which communicates what you mean better? "No government", which most people hear as "chaos", or "voluntary government", which means order and peace -- and no systemic aggressive violence.

I encourage you to immediately correct someone calling you an anarchist. It's just not a good foot to start on.


Now, to everyone. Stop bickering. Really think about it, you'll realize they're but a hair's difference between a minarchist and a voluntaryist -- and if the minarchist wants to fund his "government" voluntarily, rather than through extortion, then there's no difference at all!

We all want much smaller government. Bicker if you must once we've got a constitutional government, but it's just foolish and counterproductive before then. Let's work together now, please.

[LibertyEagle]

Let's see now, who should I believe Lew or you? It all comes down to EARNED credibility. I'll take Lew. ;)

A good little follower, aren't you? ;)

[Truth Warrior]

A good little follower, aren't you? ;) Agreement is not folllowing. DUH!! I wouldn't ever expect you to understand that ...... either. :rolleyes: Along with a WHOLE BUNCH of other things. DUH!! DUH!!

[LibertyEagle]

Agreement is not folllowing. DUH!! I wouldn't ever expect you to understand that ...... either. :rolleyes: Along with a WHOLE BUNCH of other things. DUH!! DUH!!


:D

You cannot speak for much of anything yourself. You use other people's words in place of your own. And pledge allegiance to Lew Rockwell about 15 times a day. Yeah, you're a FOLLOWER. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

:D

You cannot speak for much of anything yourself. You use other people's words in place of your own. And pledge allegiance to Lew Rockwell about 15 times a day. Yeah, you're a FOLLOWER. ;) And more and more folks are learning what you are every day too. DUH!!!

[heavenlyboy34]

Agreement is not folllowing. DUH!! I wouldn't ever expect you to understand that ...... either. :rolleyes: Along with a WHOLE BUNCH of other things. DUH!! DUH!!


I know this is off topic, but I don't want to clutter up your inbox, TW. Thanks for answering the question I pm-ed you. It clears up some things for me. ;):D:cool:

[tremendoustie]

I like to use the word "autarchist" myself. :D On RPF, though, I use "anarchist" in debates just for the sake of the debate. ttyl. ~hugs~

If it's between those two, please, pretty please use autarchist?

I'll give you a hug if you do :p.

You have to know what alarm bells the word "anarchist" sets off in people's minds. It's counterproductive and foments dissension to ring that bell.

[heavenlyboy34]

:eek: You don't REALLY expect ANY of them to ACTUALLY mouse click a link, read AND think about it, do you? :D

< LMAO! >

Just some wishful thinking on my part, you could say. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

And more and more folks are learning what you are every day too. DUH!!!

Ah, but you see, I never claimed to not follow anyone. You have. REPEATEDLY. In fact, you have mocked numerous people on this board for doing the very thing that you do, every, single, day, on this forum. :D

[Truth Warrior]

I know this is off topic, but I don't want to clutter up your inbox, TW. Thanks for answering the question I pm-ed you. It clears up some things for me. ;):D:cool: I delete those too. ;) MINIMIZE, please. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

If it's between those two, please, pretty please use autarchist?

I'll give you a hug if you do :p.

You have to know what alarm bells the word "anarchist" sets off in people's minds. It's counterproductive and foments dissension to ring that bell.

Will do. I expect that hug to be good and strong! :D:cool::)

[LibertyEagle]

Will do. I expect that hug to be good and strong! :D:cool::)

Gross me out.

Seriously, get a room.

[Truth Warrior]

Ah, but you see, I never claimed to not follow anyone. You have. REPEATEDLY. In fact, you have mocked numerous people on this board for doing the very thing that you do, every, single, day, on this forum. :D And you CHOOSE to "misunderstand" that too ... of course. :rolleyes: GROW UP! :p

[heavenlyboy34]

Gross me out.

Seriously, get a room.

You get grossed out by hugs? :eek: Are you on some really weird prescriptions or something? (no offense if you have some kind of disorder I've never heard of):confused:

[LibertyEagle]

And you CHOOSE to "misunderstand" that too ... of course. :rolleyes: GROW UP! :p

TW, if you continue to slam people on this board who are not anarchists, then I will continue to expose you for what you are. :cool:

[Truth Warrior]

TW, if you continue to slam people on this board who are not anarchists, then I will continue to expose you for what you are. :cool: Lead by example. :rolleyes: As if you had a clue, AUTHORITARIAN collectivist. :p

[tremendoustie]

Gross me out.

Seriously, get a room.

Lol :D. Just a joke LE, LB is always hugging people, and it's not THAT kind of hug.

But, I do follow through on promises.

*friendly hug

[tremendoustie]

You know constitutionalists like yourself, LE, are my ally, as all voluntaryists, minarchists, and constiutionalists should be allies of each other at this time, if they know what's good for them.

No hard feelings, we're all in this together.

[LibertyEagle]

You know constitutionalists like yourself, LE, are my ally, as all voluntaryists, minarchists, and constiutionalists should be allies of each other at this time, if they know what's good for them.

No hard feelings, we're all in this together.

That's what I think too. Perhaps you should talk to "Truth" Warrior and his follower, heavenlyboy34. Because they do not.

[LibertyEagle]

Lead by example. :rolleyes: As if you had a clue, AUTHORITARIAN collectivist. :p

More name-calling. Why am I not surprised. When you FAIL miserably, you either bring out the name-calling, or the links to tractors. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

More name-calling. Why am I not surprised. When you FAIL miserably, you either bring out the name-calling, or the links to tractors. :rolleyes: Just like you do. :p Since it's you, I figure that you can probably maybe understand tractors. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Lol :D. Just a joke LE, LB is always hugging people, and it's not THAT kind of hug.

But, I do follow through on promises.

*friendly hug

Thanx for the hug! :):D:cool: C-ya later.

[LibertyEagle]

Just like you do. :p Since it's you, I figure that you can probably understand tractors. :rolleyes:

Nope. Never been on a tractor.

[Truth Warrior]

Nope. Never been on a tractor. I don't believe you. :p Why should I? :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

FWIW, I've been on a tractor (A John Deere). They're pretty fun to ride, climb, and work on, IMHO. :D

[Truth Warrior]

FWIW, I've been on a tractor (A John Deere). They're pretty fun to ride, climb, and work on, IMHO. :D Me too. ;) You and LE will just have to share the tractor links. :D

[Theocrat]

I'm going to say this once, I'm not going to get into a big argument.

For everyone scared to death of "anarchists", by which you mean voluntaryists, I'm going to tell you what it's about.

Not initiating violence. So, all those laws against violent crime are fine -- they're about defending against violence. The only problem is funding: People should not be forced to pay for this service against their will. That's why voluntaryists believe in protection services that can be subscribed to voluntarily.

Some of you think this it's vastly different. It's not. Voluntaryists believe in societal order and rules as well. They just don't think people should be forced to pay for one service, even if they'd like to opt out, or subscribe to another. Do you really think it would be right to force those who wish to opt out of your government system, to pay into it anyway? Voluntaryists say no -- that's the only difference. If you think about it, you'll realize that this force is not really necessary anyway -- people will want to be protected.


For the people still calling themselves "anarchists", please stop. People don't get it, you're just being confusing and scary to them, because to them this means chaos and violence.

Please, please call yourselves voluntaryists, or something like that -- emphasize that you want VOLUNTARY government, not NO government. Yes, I agree that these are the same thing, because by definition government is involuntary and funded by the routine use of violence. But which sounds more scary -- and which communicates what you mean better? "No government", which most people hear as "chaos", or "voluntary government", which means order and peace -- and no systemic aggressive violence.

I encourage you to immediately correct someone calling you an anarchist. It's just not a good foot to start on.


Now, to everyone. Stop bickering. Really think about it, you'll realize they're but a hair's difference between a minarchist and a voluntaryist -- and if the minarchist wants to fund his "government" voluntarily, rather than through extortion, then there's no difference at all!

We all want much smaller government. Bicker if you must once we've got a constitutional government, but it's just foolish and counterproductive before then. Let's work together now, please.

We have a voluntary government in the form of a constitutional republic. Do you remember these:

http://www.citizensforprincipledgovernment.com/images/declaration.jpg http://www.wayne.k12.ms.us/beatfour/assets/images/400-us_constitution_pg_1of4_preview.jpg

The men who signed those documents did so of their own free will. They were not forced to have civil government. They saw civil government as a necessary and blessed institution to protect the God-given rights of men against the evils of wicked men. These signers were moral and religious men who believed in the privilege and principle that men should be able to choose their rulers to ensure the peace, tranquility, and prosperity of a society.

The problem is not that we have a civil government. The problem lies with those politicians who currently hold seats of power in our republic who have forgotten the original intent of what our government was supposed to be about. They no longer honor God, nor do they submit to the rule of law. They make themselves the final arbiters of what is good for the nation by illegal coercion of power, rather than follow the mandates of the Constitution which they swore to uphold and protect. That is the problem, and until we get the right kind of people to represent us in the way their enumerated powers allow them to, then our current politicians will voluntarily force their political agenda and policies onto the rest of the nation, whether we agree with it or not.

If you don't want to be part of this form of government nor seek to make changes and reformation to what our republic used to be, then you can voluntarily move to another nation of your choice. Nobody is forcing anarchists or "voluntaryists" to stay here.

[AutoDas]

appeal to authority

We are a Confederacy before a Union.

You are free to secede.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Articles_page1.jpg/371px-Articles_page1.jpg

[Truth Warrior]

We have a voluntary government in the form of a constitutional republic. Do you remember these:

http://www.citizensforprincipledgovernment.com/images/declaration.jpg http://www.wayne.k12.ms.us/beatfour/assets/images/400-us_constitution_pg_1of4_preview.jpg

The men who signed those documents did so of their own free will. They were not forced to have civil government. They saw civil government as a necessary and blessed institution to protect the God-given rights of men against the evils of wicked men. These signers were moral and religious men who believed in the privilege and principle that men should be able to choose their rulers to ensure the peace, tranquility, and prosperity of a society.

The problem is not that we have a civil government. The problem lies with those politicians who currently hold seats of power in our republic who have forgotten the original intent of what our government was supposed to be about. They no longer honor God, nor do they submit to the rule of law. They make themselves the final arbiters of what is good for the nation by illegal coercion of power, rather than follow the mandates of the Constitution which they swore to uphold and protect. That is the problem, and until we get the right kind of people to represent us in the way their enumerated powers allow them to, then our current politicians will voluntarily force their political agenda and policies onto the rest of the nation, whether we agree with it or not.

If you don't want to be part of this form of government nor seek to make changes and reformation to what our republic used to be, then you can voluntarily move to another nation of your choice. Nobody is forcing anarchists or "voluntaryists" to stay here.

Nor the "Christians" to follow their bible. Remember that? :rolleyes: How does that go again? "Our Father, which art in D.C., hallowed be thy name."? Gee, how symbolic? The CONstitution fades. Just like in the REAL world, and at about the same rate.

The people are sovereign and have seniority. Let the archists move to Somalia and take their government with them voluntarily. :p :rolleyes: You all can just think of it as a "Christian" mission trip, to save the world for the state. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

I have been asking that question of "voluntaryists" for some time now. BTW, you haven't asked me. ANSWER: One by one. How many have you asked here? :p Ya got the links to your posts? :rolleyes:

And NOT answering my question, of course. :( :rolleyes:

[tremendoustie]

We have a voluntary government in the form of a constitutional republic. Do you remember these:

http://www.citizensforprincipledgovernment.com/images/declaration.jpg http://www.wayne.k12.ms.us/beatfour/assets/images/400-us_constitution_pg_1of4_preview.jpg

The men who signed those documents did so of their own free will. They were not forced to have civil government. They saw civil government as a necessary and blessed institution to protect the God-given rights of men against the evils of wicked men. These signers were moral and religious men who believed in the privilege and principle that men should be able to choose their rulers to ensure the peace, tranquility, and prosperity of a society.

The problem is not that we have a civil government. The problem lies with those politicians who currently hold seats of power in our republic who have forgotten the original intent of what our government was supposed to be about. They no longer honor God, nor do they submit to the rule of law. They make themselves the final arbiters of what is good for the nation by illegal coercion of power, rather than follow the mandates of the Constitution which they swore to uphold and protect. That is the problem, and until we get the right kind of people to represent us in the way their enumerated powers allow them to, then our current politicians will voluntarily force their political agenda and policies onto the rest of the nation, whether we agree with it or not.

If you don't want to be part of this form of government nor seek to make changes and reformation to what our republic used to be, then you can voluntarily move to another nation of your choice. Nobody is forcing anarchists or "voluntaryists" to stay here.

I did not sign those documents, nor do those men rightfully represent me by signing it (how could they, I was not born yet). They did not even represent all of the people at that time. Many disagreed with these documents.

Neither these men, nor current politicians, own the country. When I buy my land, I do so by trading with the owner an equal value of goods which I have labored to produce. I then own that land. The founders do not own the land, nor do current politicians, nor does my neighbor down the street.

What of the landholder at the time the constitution was ratified, who disagreed with the decision, and nowhere signed any document agreeing to be bound by the outcome of the convention? Was his property forfeit to the majority simply because they said so, and had more guns?

If two thieves, before they mug someone, write a constitution, allowing them to do so, then ratify it by two thirds majority, does the act become moral, despite the victim of the robbery never consenting?

What if these two men set up shop under a bridge, and write up a constitution enabling them to steal from whoever crosses it. They say, "If you don't want to be stolen from, don't cross this bridge -- no one is forcing you to cross it". Would their actions then become moral?

What if every bridge in the land has such a group of men under it, so that there is no other bridge to use, just as there is coercive government on every inhabitable corner of the globe? Should travelers be forced to find routes that do not use bridges "owned" by thieves? Perhaps, beset by these self styled "governments" they must go live in the arctic. Is this just? Is the theft no longer theft because it could hypothetically be avoided at great expense and difficulty? No. Theft is theft, and "Your money or your life or go live in the arctic" is not far removed from "your money or your life", and not removed at all in a moral sense.

If I and my friends, who form a majority of the street we live in, decide to draft a "constitution" to plunder the remainder of the block without their consent, saying, "if you don't want to be plundered you may move away", is that not theft, and robbery?

What if I have gather all those together in a predominantly brown eyed town, and say, "We will now form a constitution. All those in favor of enslaving everyone who has blue eyes, sign here." And I get a majority. Would slavery of the blue-eyed people then be ok?

Suppose I gather a majority of all those in a countryside together, and say, "I am aware that many of our fellow men want to live freely, without forced taxation. However, I see here that we have a majority who wish to forcibly tax those men, and we own a majority of the guns. Let us form a constitution, since we have numbers on our side, and begin to steal from these men and their children in perpetuity". What is the morality of that action?

An agreement is only an agreement when agreed upon by all parties. The collection of a "debt" which was incurred based on a document to which the debtor never consented is theft, plain and simple -- even if every other man on earth signed the document.

[youngbuck]

Non-Archists / Anarcho-Capitalists are FTW

Oh, now I see what "archism" is; sounds good to me.

[Truth Warrior]

Oh, now I see what "archism" is; sounds good to me. Yep, it's all rage among the collectivists and has been for quite some time now. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Yep, it's all rage among the collectivists and has been for quite some time now. ;)

Do you think you can give it a rest now? Geez. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Do you think you can give it a rest now? Geez. :rolleyes:

http://www.kubota.com/f/products/tractor.cfm (http://www.kubota.com/f/products/tractor.cfm)

[Kraig]

Of course anarchy to the logical and pragmatic is nothing more than a repository for the vain who can read and write. It really has no place in any civilization other than to foster decay, because it cannot exist without a regimented structure of comparison.

Anarchy makes perfect sense if humans weren't actually human.

Points on human tendency to organization:

1. Our closest relatives, chimps and gorillas, naturally live in small family centered groups. This points to a similar nature in us.

2. Of the 200,000 year history of humanity, 190,000 years of it was spent in small nomadic groups of hunter-gatherers.

3. The growth of agricultural societies was usually not a matter of hunter-gatherers adopting sedentary lifestyles, but of the growth of the population and specialization of sedentary groups over-running hunter gatherer communities.

MAILING LIST OBSERVATIONS:


Anarchy is supremely easy to accomplish as a condition, impossible to establish as a way.

Anarchy would result in the breaking of laws and mob rule. In defense of this common sense, anarchists most often declare:


The best response:


Anarchy only produces tyranny. What we are now seeing is similar to what was seen at the beginning of the last century leading up to WW1. Anarchists emerge in turmoil and usually form the death throws of a society. Their lack of an understanding of order paves the way for tyranny to take hold. That is why we must resist the anarchist as we do the authoritarian collectivist. Anarchy is a literary post modern infection that allows the virus of oppression to take hold. I would suggest that real Conservatives do everything in their power to disrupt them.

You posted a bunch of facts and opinions yet NONE of them point to how anarchy could possibly lead to tyranny. Complete non-sense not to mention ironic for someone who claims that a state is for the logical and pragmatic.

That said, if you really think you are better off fighting me (who wants to leave you alone and let you be) rather than your beloved government which is enslaving you, let me know and I'll give you my address. Stop by and we'll see what we can work out. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-4kCD4nbrw

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-4kCD4nbrw

Do you think you can give it a rest now? Geez. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Do you think you can give it a rest now? Geez. :rolleyes:

It was the tractors link you posted, TW.

BLOWBACK. :p

[Conza88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-4kCD4nbrw

WHY do you persist with your BS paradigm?

Geezus fkcen christ, this has been refuted countless times. It's bullshit. Get it through your head, or address the points I've made previously.

You just ignore reality, put your head down and try fight the shitstorm that is the truth.

Quit believing lies. Address the arguments previously made, or stfu? :rolleyes:

</rant>

[constituent]

Anarchy is just a station en route to another form of tyranny

And conservatism is not?

Please provide examples and sources.

[Todd]

Whatever else he or she may have been, no anarchist has ever deliberately willed chaos or world destruction. Indeed, anarchists have always believed that the establishment of their system would eliminate the chaotic elements now troubling the world. - Rothbard

Questions: Isn't this the similar argument used by collectivists as to how their intentions have never been deliberately to cause Soviet Unions or Nazi Germanys.

But isn't true anarchy simply tyranny in that there is no form of enforcement mechanism to protect individuals from the small collective bands of the strong that naturally form in caotic environments (The Lord of the Flies; The Road Warrior)... Like Mafia, gangs, tribes...etc?

Trust me...the anarchist principle is much more attractive to me today after living under our current conditions, but I not convinced that what anarchists call for is practical or even desirable to limited local forms of government.

I consider myself a Paleo conservative - I dont believe that "conservatives" have followed their core principles for some time now and that the Rockwell quote is right on with what's wrong with conservatism.


"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America." -- Lew Rockwell

[LibertyEagle]

WHY do you persist with your BS paradigm?

Geezus fkcen christ, this has been refuted countless times. It's bullshit. Get it through your head, or address the points I've made previously.

You just ignore reality, put your head down and try fight the shitstorm that is the truth.

Quit believing lies. Address the arguments previously made, or stfu? :rolleyes:

</rant>

Conza dear, I don't recall any arguments you made against the video.

But, stick it in your ear as far as the STFU goes. :cool: It's not only those of you who are hell bent on bashing anyone and everyone who is not a flaming Anarchist, that can speak. You know?

[Truth Warrior]

WHY do you persist with your BS paradigm?

Geezus fkcen christ, this has been refuted countless times. It's bullshit. Get it through your head, or address the points I've made previously.

You just ignore reality, put your head down and try fight the shitstorm that is the truth.

Quit believing lies. Address the arguments previously made, or stfu? :rolleyes:

</rant> + a bazillion.

QFT!

[constituent]

That said, if you really think you are better off fighting me (who wants to leave you alone and let you be) rather than your beloved government which is enslaving you, let me know and I'll give you my address. Stop by and we'll see what we can work out. :rolleyes:

...after he gets down to austin.

open invite, still open.

[sailor]

But isn't true anarchy simply tyranny in that there is no form of enforcement mechanism to protect individuals from the small collective bands of the strong that naturally form in caotic environments (The Lord of the Flies; The Road Warrior)... Like Mafia, gangs, tribes...etc?

Well mate why do you think the conditions would be chaotic?

Sure there would be protection agencies. In the 1970s already Americans spent I think it was 1.6 billion dollars a year on private security. For hiring security companies and so on. With folks fred from the burden of taxation even more money could be used for this.

We already pay loads of money ostensibly for protection to the government in taxes, but how much do we get in return in terms of services? I don`t think we are getting our money`s worth.

So I think in anarchy there would be more security and at a lower cost no less.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well mate why do you think the conditions would be chaotic?

Sure there would be protection agencies. In the 1970s already Americans spent I think it was 1.6 billion dollars a year on private security. For hiring security companies and so on. With folks fred from the burden of taxation even more money could be used for this.

We already pay loads of money ostensibly for protection to the government in taxes, but how much do we get in return in terms of services? I don`t think we are getting our money`s worth.

So I think in anarchy there would be more security and at a lower cost no less.

+a zillion :D Thanks! Not to mention that State cops are notorious for their OWN criminal behavior. ;):p:mad:

[Truth Warrior]

It took 60 years for the US Federal government to spend the FIRST billion dollars ( 1789 - 1849 ).

[Kraig]

But isn't true anarchy simply tyranny in that there is no form of enforcement mechanism to protect individuals from the small collective bands of the strong that naturally form in caotic environments (The Lord of the Flies; The Road Warrior)... Like Mafia, gangs, tribes...etc? .

Fiction and more fiction.

Who protects the weak from your powerful state? (hint: no one)

[acptulsa]

Fiction and more fiction.

Depends and still depends.

Some would argue that just as soon as the people organize sufficiently to prevent it, your anarchic state has ended. You can spout theory that 'disproves' this until you're blue in the face, but I'll bet you can't cite one real-world counterexample...

[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.

[constituent]

Some would argue that just as soon as the people organize sufficiently to prevent it, your anarchic state has ended.

The operable term being state. Self-organization is a good thing.

Note: self-organization

[Kraig]

Depends and still depends.

Some would argue that just as soon as the people organize sufficiently to prevent it, your anarchic state has ended. You can spout theory that 'disproves' this until you're blue in the face, but I'll bet you can't cite one real-world counterexample...

I don't think anyone from my side is saying you can't organize to protect yourself. Why not organize, defeat the barbarian threat, and then move on? Why does the creation of a perpetual state that claims sovereignty over the entire region have to go hand in hand with organizing to defend yourself? I think you are stuck in a A or B dream world when there are really more options available.

[acptulsa]

I think you are stuck in a A or B dream world when there are really more options available.

Someone's stuck in a dream world, all right... :rolleyes: Since when does someone, after having gained power, drop it and 'move on'? Especially when (as usually happens) the people who benefitted beg him or her to stay on.

I think the closest we can practically come is to have something between the Articles of Confederation and the only slightly less federally-focused Constitution as written--namely an association of states that are restricted from certain activities like forbidding their citizens from moving to other states. This creates a competition between governments and allows the citizens of all to benefit from that competition. That's what comes up missing when the federal government oversteps its bounds and does more than ensure free movement, free trade and the common defense.

Competition is good. The states compete with each other all the time, to everyone's benefit. Who competes with the federal morass in D.C? No one who stays healthy...

[Truth Warrior]

Summary findings



In 2004 State and Federal courts convicted a combined total of about 1,145,000 adults of felonies.


Between 1994 and 2004 the number of felony convictions increased 24% in State courts.


State courts convicted about 1,079,000 adults of a felony in 2004.


Between 1994 and 2004, the conviction rate for violent crimes has risen.


Seventy percent of those convicted in 2004 were sentenced to incarceration.


Sixty-two percent of defendants charged with a felony in the 75 most populated counties in May 2004 were released from jail pending disposition of their case.


Thirty-three percent of those who were released were rearrested for a new offense, failed to appear in court, or violated some other condition of their pretrial release.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/stssent.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/stssent.htm)

[weslinder]

An anarchy would be great if you could enforce it.

[acptulsa]

An anarchy would be great if you could enforce it.

Hilarious and too true to be funny all at once!

Thank you for that.

[Truth Warrior]

An anarchy would be great if you could enforce it. An archy would be great if you could enforce it. :D

[Conza88]

Conza dear, I don't recall any arguments you made against the video.

But, stick it in your ear as far as the STFU goes. :cool: It's not only those of you who are hell bent on bashing anyone and everyone who is not a flaming Anarchist, that can speak. You know?

I despise anarchists, so I have no idea what you're talking about? :confused:

As far as my arguments go: which, btw, you've never addressed.



BTW, if you have a state: new insight by Hans-Herman Hoppe. Monarchy > Republic.

Democracy: The God That Failed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html)
Interview with Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3)
Democracy: The God that Failed Lecture. (http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/20thCentury/12_20th_Hoppe.mp3)

But REALLY, basically this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1993582&postcount=53) whole post.

[acptulsa]

An archy would be great if you could enforce it. :D


Actually, what would make it great is if it were possible to have it without enforcing it. Which seems to be what the anarchists are wishing for--rule of law with no enforcement needed. If humans weren't imperfect, having a government would be no better and no worse than not having one...

[Truth Warrior]

Actually, what would make it great is if it were possible to have it without enforcing it. Which seems to be what the anarchists are wishing for--rule of law with no enforcement needed. If humans weren't imperfect, having a government would be no better and no worse than not having one...

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." ;)

[Kraig]

Someone's stuck in a dream world, all right... :rolleyes: Since when does someone, after having gained power, drop it and 'move on'? Especially when (as usually happens) the people who benefitted beg him or her to stay on.

It can happen when the people involved are educated and aware of the true nature of the state. When then people involved know that the attempted goals of safety and prosperity will be destroyed by the state, not helped by it. I am not in a dream world because I know that an anarchist solution is a LONG way off, it may never happen even. That doesn't change the fact that it is best and I am going to promote and endorse what is best. If humanity hopes to survive another 1000 years without destroying themselves or the whole earth, they had better learn the true nature of government and get rid of the that ideology. I don't have to look for someone else to do it first before being willing to try what I know will work.



I think the closest we can practically come is to have something between the Articles of Confederation and the only slightly less federally-focused Constitution as written--namely an association of states that are restricted from certain activities like forbidding their citizens from moving to other states. This creates a competition between governments and allows the citizens of all to benefit from that competition. That's what comes up missing when the federal government oversteps its bounds and does more than ensure free movement, free trade and the common defense.


...and the Articles of Confederation will grow into the constitution and the constitution will grow into the government we see now in 2009. That is the practical truth you are ignoring, your ideal is something that has already been tried and it has failed.



Competition is good. The states compete with each other all the time, to everyone's benefit. Who competes with the federal morass in D.C? No one who stays healthy...

Competition is good when you have to put yourself at risk to compete rather than someone else. The state competes with other states at the expense of it's people and nothing but destruction is the result.

[Truth Warrior]

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." -- Charles Mackay (1814 - 1889)

[Kraig]

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." -- Charles Mackay (1814 - 1889)

I just wonder if men will ever outgrow the herd mentality.

[Truth Warrior]

"In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule." -- (Nietzsche, 'Beyond Good and Evil')

[acptulsa]

It can happen when the people involved are educated and aware of the true nature of the state. When then people involved know that the attempted goals of safety and prosperity will be destroyed by the state, not helped by it. I am not in a dream world because I know that an anarchist solution is a LONG way off, it may never happen even.


"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." ;)

So, what is the purpose of these divisive threads--other than to benefit the maxarchists, of course? The continual revisions of these divisions just don't fit into my vision of what would serve us all best in 2012...

[Truth Warrior]

I just wonder if men will ever outgrow the herd mentality. I'd say it's getting pretty close to do or die. ;)


"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." -- Albert Einstein

[sailor]

Actually, what would make it great is if it were possible to have it without enforcing it. Which seems to be what the anarchists are wishing for--rule of law with no enforcement needed. If humans weren't imperfect, having a government would be no better and no worse than not having one...

:rolleyes: If you know virtually nothing about anarchy that is fine. I don`t need you to know anything.

But if that is the case please refrain from talking about it as if you knew anything about it.

There are many sources from which it is possible to learn how law would be enforced on the anti-social in an anarchy. But I suppose it is easier to be an airhead and talk as if you already knew than read a little bit.

[Truth Warrior]

So, what is the purpose of these divisive threads--other than to benefit the maxarchists, of course? The continual revisions of these divisions just don't fit into my vision of what would serve us all best in 2012... Divide and conquer, power and control is the archists game.<IMHO> ;)

Does the term "projection" have any meaning for you? :rolleyes:

"The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle." -- Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin

[acptulsa]

:rolleyes: If you know virtually nothing about anarchy that is fine. I don`t need you to know anything.

But if that is the case please refrain from talking about it as if you knew anything about it.

There are many sources from which it is possible to learn how law would be enforced on the anti-social in an anarchy. But I suppose it is easier to be an airhead and talk as if you already knew than read a little bit.

Would it not make more sense, if you are inventing something new, to invent a new name for it? Because as the term is generally understood, 'anarchy' has nothing but nothing to do with 'laws'.

Unless causing confusion and stirring it into division is your goal, of course.

I have no beef with minarchists, as I am one... :rolleyes:

Gee, let's convert the masses by screaming at them that a word they've been using since before you were born doesn't mean what it has always meant. Didn't we get into a couple of goofy-assed wars because a certain sect of warmongering liberals decided to redefine 'conservative' and didn't get called on it?

Yeah, more division is just what we need.

[Kraig]

So, what is the purpose of these divisive threads--other than to benefit the maxarchists, of course? The continual revisions of these divisions just don't fit into my vision of what would serve us all best in 2012...

I don't know, I don't make threads called "archists cause tyranny, anarchists will have to fight them". This can be discussed calmly and intelligently without being divisive. In the starting post of the anarchy thread I created last week, I even said limited government was a good short term goal, just that we should never let it be the long term goal.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't know, I don't make threads called "archists cause tyranny, anarchists will have to fight them". This can be discussed calmly and intelligently without being divisive. In the starting post of the anarchy thread I created last week, I even said limited government was a good short term goal, just that we should never let it be the long term goal.

Apparently, you have not been following much of "Truth" Warrior's work.

[Kraig]

Would it not make more sense, if you are inventing something new, to invent a new name for it? Because as the term is generally understood, 'anarchy' has nothing but nothing to do with 'laws'.

Unless causing confusion and stirring it into division is your goal, of course.

I have no beef with minarchists, as I am one... :rolleyes:

Gee, let's convert the masses by screaming at them that a word they've been using since before you were born doesn't mean what it has always meant. Didn't we get into a couple of goofy-assed wars because a certain sect of warmongering liberals decided to redefine 'conservative' and didn't get called on it?

Yeah, more division is just what we need.

Perhaps, but how many other words have to be thrown out as well? I think just saying "anarchy doesn't mean what you think it means" is a good starting point, but I am open to ideas.

[Truth Warrior]

Would it not make more sense, if you are inventing something new, to invent a new name for it? Because as the term is generally understood, 'anarchy' has nothing but nothing to do with 'laws'.

Unless causing confusion and stirring it into division is your goal, of course.

I have no beef with minarchists, as I am one... :rolleyes:

Gee, let's convert the masses by screaming at them that a word they've been using since before you were born doesn't mean what it has always meant. Didn't we get into a couple of goofy-assed wars because a certain sect of warmongering liberals decided to redefine 'conservative' and didn't get called on it?

Yeah, more division is just what we need. I PREFER "libertarian" but the GOP-lite LP has highjacked that one here. ;) :(

[acptulsa]

I don't know, I don't make threads called "archists cause tyranny, anarchists will have to fight them". This can be discussed calmly and intelligently without being divisive. In the starting post of the anarchy thread I created last week, I even said limited government was a good short term goal, just that we should never let it be the long term goal.

Outstanding! Then let us work together for a while, and see if the issue ever really comes to a head in our lifetimes...

Evolution's all well and good, but right now we aren't even going the right direction! That doesn't lead to evolution, it leads to devolution--and if we aren't careful, it could lead to a revolution that, in turn, leads to worse devolution!

[Kraig]

Apparently, you have not been following much of "Truth" Warrior's work.

I'm not Truth Warrior, but I think you guys over react to him. He rarely posts much outside of links and quotes.

[LibertyEagle]

Perhaps, but how many other words have to be thrown out as well? I think just saying "anarchy doesn't mean what you think it means" is a good starting point, but I am open to ideas.

Kraig, when the majority of people out there hear the word anarchy, what comes to mind are crazed people running around looting and burning private property (leftist anarchists). I understand those are not the people who follow Rothbard's work, but I guess it all just comes down to whether you want to spend your time arguing about a label, or about the underlying principles.

[sailor]

Would it not make more sense, if you are inventing something new, to invent a new name for it? Because as the term is generally understood, 'anarchy' has nothing but nothing to do with 'laws'.

Unless causing confusion and stirring it into division is your goal, of course.

Who is inventing something new? Anarchy is the original and natural condition of human society. It is the state that is new.

Law is much older than the state and was around much before there was a state. Stateless societies were perfectly capable of being governed by law.

It is statist propaganda that you can not have law without the state and that they are somehow connected. When in fact state is negation of natural law.

I won`t have statist propaganda affect how I use words. Else we can move right into 1984.


But the point remains. You`re dodging. Instead of reading about the security-judicial aspects of anarchy as put forward by anarchist thinkers you talk out of your arse about how need people to be angels and never want to break laws for it to work when that couldn`t be further from the truth.

I don`t make assumptions on how you see your vision without actuall knowledge to back it up, so please show the same kindness in turn.

[Kraig]

Kraig, when the majority of people out there hear the word anarchy, what comes to mind are crazed people running around looting and burning private property (leftist anarchists). I understand those are not the people who follow Rothbard's work, but I guess it all just comes down to whether you want to spend your time arguing about a label, or about the underlying principles.

That hasn't been my experience though. I have talked to people and as soon as I say "I believe there should be no government" they assume that chaotic situation you described would be the outcome without me ever using the word "anarchy". Personally I think the misunderstanding comes from a false notion of what government does, not a misunderstanding of what the word means.

I think we agree on that point though because I really don't use the word in conversation, I am just less timid on these forums because I give people here more credit on being able to think about these things.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not Truth Warrior, but I think you guys over react to him. He rarely posts much outside of links and quotes.

That "rarely" is comprised of little else besides comments that are divisive and insulting to anyone who is not an "anarchist" (his choice of terms), or against anyone who has chosen to participate in the very activism that Ron Paul suggests.

[tremendoustie]

Kraig, when the majority of people out there hear the word anarchy, what comes to mind are crazed people running around looting and burning private property (leftist anarchists). I understand those are not the people who follow Rothbard's work, but I guess it all just comes down to whether you want to spend your time arguing about a label, or about the underlying principles.

I agree with you, LE, on this point.

Don't you think, Kraig, that convincing someone to support a voluntary society is a big enough challenge already, without first expecting people to overcome strong inherent biases against a particular label?

What does using that word really accomplish, other than to scare the average citizen? Our ideas are what is important. It would truly be a shame if our ideas failed to spread for a reason other than the ideas themselves -- especially one so easily preventable as this.

[LibertyEagle]

That hasn't been my experience though. I have talked to people and as soon as I say "I believe there should be no government" they assume that chaotic situation you described would be the outcome without me ever using the word "anarchy". Personally I think the misunderstanding comes from a misunderstanding of what government does, not a misunderstanding of what the word means.

What age group are you talking to?

[tremendoustie]

That hasn't been my experience though. I have talked to people and as soon as I say "I believe there should be no government" they assume that chaotic situation you described would be the outcome without me ever using the word "anarchy". Personally I think the misunderstanding comes from a misunderstanding of what government does, not a misunderstanding of what the word means.


That is right, that is why you need to say that you support VOLUNTARY government. I know you believe it's a contradiction in terms, but get someone to fight for voluntary government, and they are on your side 100% anyway -- fighting for what you would call privatization.

This is better terminology, and hits nearer the point of what you are trying to communicate. Government, to many, can include personal self-government, or a voluntary association.

What you are trying to end is the initiation of force. Thus, you want to end government based on violence and coersion, and you want to promote voluntary government.

This is the line that does not compromise, yet does not drive people away.

[Kraig]

What age group are you talking to?

Pretty broad, 21-60+ but mostly 21-mid 30s

[Truth Warrior]

YAL Statement of Principles

We are the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). As Americans we recognize the God-given natural rights of life, liberty, and property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individual and directed by we the people.

We recognize that freedom deserves responsibility and therefore we hold ourselves to a high moral character and conduct. Integrity emphasizes our stance towards action. Principle defines our outlook towards government. Peace and prosperity drives our ambitions towards our countrymen.

We inherit a corrupt, coercive world that has lost respect for voluntary action. Our government has failed and dragged our country into moral decay. The political class dominates the agenda with a violent, callous, controlling grip. And, for this we do not stand.

We welcome limited government conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians who trust in the creed we set forth.

WE, as Young Americans for Liberty believe:

THAT government is the negation of liberty;

THAT voluntary action is the only ethical behavior;

THAT respect for the individual's property is fundamental to a peaceful society;

THAT violent action is only warranted in defense of one's property;

THAT the individual owns his/her body and is therefore responsible for his/her actions;

THAT society is a responsibility of the people, not the government.

http://www.yaliberty.org/mission.php (http://www.yaliberty.org/mission.php)

[LibertyEagle]

Pretty broad, 21-60+ but mostly 21-mid 30s

I was thinking it must be younger folks. I talk to a lot of white collar middle age and up, folks. The term "anarchy" scares the crap out of them.

Here's what I don't get. Isn't it possible to talk about principles without insulting them and scaring them to death? Because if we do, most will run the other direction. Because even if people know what they have now is horrible, at least they feel like it is a known and what to expect from it vs. some unknown anarchy.

That's why it always made more sense to me to be making them understand that government is the problem; not the solution. We can have a discussion about it, without me causing them to run away thinking I was a nut job; which is what they'd do if I started pitching anarchy.

[acptulsa]

Law is much older than the state and was around much before there was a state. Stateless societies were perfectly capable of being governed by law.

It is statist propaganda that you can not have law without the state and that they are somehow connected. When in fact state is negation of natural law.

Firstly, this:


Don't you think that convincing someone to support a voluntary society is a big enough challenge already, without first expecting people to overcome strong inherent biases against a particular label?

What does using that word really accomplish, other than to scare the average citizen? Our ideas are what is important. It would truly be a shame if our ideas failed to spread for a reason other than the ideas themselves -- especially one so easily preventable as this.

Are you trying to persuade people or force a change of definition upon them against their will? Come on...

Secondly and related, excepting the Law of Gravity how do you enforce these 'laws'--be they 'natural' or not--on those who disagree? And once you do, do you or do you not have a 'state'? One person enforcing a 'law' is a rogue and potentially no better than a criminal himself; two or more people doing it is 'collectivist'. Simple, isn't it?

[LibertyEagle]

YAL Mission Statement
The mission of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is to train, educate, and mobilize youth activists committed to "winning on principle". Our goal is to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direction of our government.

Notice they talk about RECLAIMING OUR GOVERNMENT.

[tremendoustie]

Firstly, this:



Are you trying to persuade people or force a change of definition upon them against their will? Come on...

Secondly and related, excepting the Law of Gravity how do you enforce these 'laws'--be they 'natural' or not--on those who disagree? And once you do, do you or do you not have a 'state'? One person enforcing a 'law' is a rogue and potentially no better than a criminal himself; two or more people doing it is 'collectivist'. Simple, isn't it?

"Laws" are fine as long as they do not violate the NAP. There is nothing wrong with "laws" -- meaning a list of things a private protection agency will prosecute -- against murder or theft.

If "government" were voluntary, it would only be able to collect money from subscribers who choose to use its service. In effect, it would be the same as a private security firm, which perhaps offers fire and other services as well.

[constituent]

An anarchy would be great if you could enforce it.

wtf is an anarchy?

[cujothekitten]

Anarchy only produces tyranny. What we are now seeing is similar to what was seen at the beginning of the last century leading up to WW1. Anarchists emerge in turmoil and usually form the death throws of a society. Their lack of an understanding of order paves the way for tyranny to take hold. That is why we must resist the anarchist as we do the authoritarian collectivist. Anarchy is a literary post modern infection that allows the virus of oppression to take hold. I would suggest that real Conservatives do everything in their power to disrupt them.


Translation: If anarchists don't do what we want we will hurt you, whether you are actually harming someone or not.

And anarchists are the problem?

[acptulsa]

wtf is an anarchy?

ROFL!

There it is in a nutshell. You don't win converts by screaming at people that words they have been using since before you were born don't mean what they have been understood to mean since before you were born. Doesn't work.

[Truth Warrior]

wtf is an anarchy?

What Is Anarchy? by Butler Shaffer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)

[tremendoustie]

F
Are you trying to persuade people or force a change of definition upon them against their will? Come on...


In other words, there is no change of definition, if you just think about it for a minute. It's only a change in rhetoric, from one which will get you immediately shut out of most people's minds, to one which can be the beginning of reasonable discussion.

[dannno]

Hah, I'm not an anarchist per se, but the OP was completely illogical.

In response to the anarchist argument that people wouldn't enter into contracts with those who break them, he used the example that people break contract law today, so why wouldn't they in anarchy?

They obviously completely misunderstood the argument, the whole point of the anarchist argument is that the law causes a false sense of security so that people just enter into contracts all willy-nilly assuming that the government will protect them. Well, the government isn't very good at that, so in anarchy people would be more careful with whom they entered into contracts. Duh.

[constituent]

ROFL!

There it is in a nutshell. You don't win converts by screaming at people that words they have been using since before you were born don't mean what they have been understood to mean since before you were born. Doesn't work.

I'm neither trying to win, nor seeking converts.

An important distinction between myself and others.

Btw, wtf is an anarchy?

[constituent]

What Is Anarchy? by Butler Shaffer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)

Thanks for the link, but i was asking about the singular "an" anarchy. I haven't read that one in a little while, but I don't remember Mr. Shaffer pointing to "an" anarchy in it.
:confused:;):D

[acptulsa]

I'm neither trying to win, nor seeking converts.

An important distinction between myself and others.

Btw, wtf is an anarchy?

Don't misunderstand, constituent. I wasn't talking to you. I was using your reasonable and even brilliant question to illustrate a simple point.

[constituent]

Don't misunderstand, constituent. I wasn't talking to you. I was using your reasonable and even brilliant question to illustrate a simple point.

cool. i misunderstood, my apologies.

lookin' back i see your logic.

'bout to head out for the day, so peace bro.

[Truth Warrior]

Thanks for the link, but i was asking about the singular "an" anarchy. I haven't read that one in a little while, but I don't remember Mr. Shaffer pointing to "an" anarchy in it.
:confused:;):D Sorry, that's the best that I could do on short notice. You may find THE common theme in that article. ;) :D

How about this?


I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.

[constituent]

my fav. part, as a matter of fact.

i paraphrase exactly that prolly twice daily.

peace to you too tw.

[acptulsa]

I PREFER "libertarian" but the GOP-lite LP has highjacked that one here. ;) :(

Oh, well, then by all means pick something more inflammatory. Hell, let's just call it 'child molesterism'. That'll win us converts!

Or we could just stick to libertarian as it does promote liberty, define it correctly by our words and actions, and call B.S. when the likes of Hannity try to hijack it. Coming up with a new name every time someone tries to redefine us won't help people get the sense of who we are and what we're fighting for. Son't help at all.

"Who? What? Oh, those people? Is that what they're calling themselves this week?"

[Truth Warrior]

Oh, well, then by all means pick something more inflammatory. Hell, let's just call it 'child molesterism'. That'll win us converts!

Or we could just stick to libertarian as it does promote liberty, define it correctly by our words and actions, and call B.S. when the likes of Hannity try to hijack it. Coming up with a new name every time someone tries to redefine us won't help people get the sense of who we are and what we're fighting for. Son't help at all.

"Who? What? Oh, those people? Is that what they're calling themselves this week?" What is the MOOT POINT difference exactly between an anarchist and a minarchist while the state still grows?

After "libertarian" my next choice is "autarchist", but I just really hate to explain "STUFF" over and over again. < YAWN! > :p That's "Truth Teacher's" talent AND avocation. Hence ( REPEATED TO YOU :rolleyes: ) Butler Shaffer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html) .

[acptulsa]

What is the MOOT POINT difference exactly between an anarchist and a minarchist while the state still grows?

After "libertarian" my next choice is "autarchist", but I just really hate to explain "STUFF" over and over again. < YAWN! > :p That's "Truth Teacher's" avocation. Hence ( REPEATED TO YOU :rolleyes: ) Butler Shaffer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html) .

The only difference I can see between a minarchist and a minarchist who calls himself an anarchist is the reaction of a potential convert when they introduct themselves. A minarchist piques their curiosity, while a self-professed anarchist almost always garners a reaction very, very familiar to yourself: :rolleyes:

[Xenophage]

Can we kill these threads? Give it a break.

Anarcho-Capitalists and Minarchists are friends. That's my ultimate position.

[Truth Warrior]

Can we kill these threads? Give it a break.

Anarcho-Capitalists and Minarchists are friends. That's my ultimate position. What's the matter, is this thread remaining open managing to just screw up your WHOLE DAY? :rolleyes:

[Kraig]

That is right, that is why you need to say that you support VOLUNTARY government. I know you believe it's a contradiction in terms, but get someone to fight for voluntary government, and they are on your side 100% anyway -- fighting for what you would call privatization.

This is better terminology, and hits nearer the point of what you are trying to communicate. Government, to many, can include personal self-government, or a voluntary association.

What you are trying to end is the initiation of force. Thus, you want to end government based on violence and coersion, and you want to promote voluntary government.

This is the line that does not compromise, yet does not drive people away.

Contradiction of terms maybe, but it's really just semantics. If a government truly was 100% voluntary I just wouldn't call it a government. Common law and acceptable social standards are certainly possible in a voluntary situation.

I was actually talking about this with a friend yesterday and she raised the point that even in the most primitive social settings a tribe or other similar form of leadership is going to emerge. The real question is, if you are in that tribe and decide you don't like how it is being run are you allowed to leave? Are they going to come after you and tax you or kill you if you do? In that sense I think voluntary leadership and law can be moral if it does not claim sovereignty over land it does not use and over people who want no part of it.

[Kraig]

Can we kill these threads? Give it a break.

Anarcho-Capitalists and Minarchists are friends. That's my ultimate position.

bumping them doesn't help you noob ;)

[Truth Warrior]

The only difference I can see between a minarchist and a minarchist who calls himself an anarchist is the reaction of a potential convert when they introduct themselves. A minarchist piques their curiosity, while a self-professed anarchist almost always garners a reaction very, very familiar to yourself: :rolleyes: I only control myself and no other. The idiocy, stupidity and ignorance of others is outside of my control. People pretty much just believe and do as they choose.<IMHO> ;)

[Xenophage]

What's the matter, is this thread remaining open managing to just screw up your WHOLE DAY? :rolleyes:

By 'kill them' I mean quit making them, not censor them.

[Xenophage]

bumping them doesn't help you noob ;)

I know. I'm doing it again right now :(

[Truth Warrior]

"An anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do." -- Robert LeFevre

[weslinder]

wtf is an anarchy?

An absence of governmental authority.

[Truth Warrior]

By 'kill them' I mean quit making them, not censor them. Talk to the thread creator, it's his baby and agenda.<IMHO> ;)

[Truth Warrior]

An absence of governmental authority. Are ANY OTHER definitions possible? Or is your's just the FINAL word on the matter? If so, HOW did THAT happen? :rolleyes:

[tremendoustie]

Contradiction of terms maybe, but it's really just semantics. If a government truly was 100% voluntary I just wouldn't call it a government. Common law and acceptable social standards are certainly possible in a voluntary situation.

I was actually talking about this with a friend yesterday and she raised the point that even in the most primitive social settings a tribe or other similar form of leadership is going to emerge. The real question is, if you are in that tribe and decide you don't like how it is being run are you allowed to leave? Are they going to come after you and tax you or kill you if you do? In that sense I think voluntary leadership and law can be moral if it does not claim sovereignty over land it does not use and over people who want no part of it.

Yes! Exactly!

And what I am saying is, since these are the same things, and the phrase "no government" scares people a lot more than "voluntary government", we should intentionally use the second phrase.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes! Exactly!

And what I am saying is, since these are the same things, and the phrase "no government" scares people a lot more than "voluntary government", we should intentionally use the second phrase. Why not CORRECT the "SCARE"? People weren't BORN scared of it!

[acptulsa]

Are ANY OTHER definitions possible? Or is your's just the FINAL word on the matter? If so, HOW did THAT happen? :rolleyes:


Love it.

'I have a great new idea--and it'll work! It'll solve everything! We just use tires!'

'How will rings of inflatable rubber help?'

'Oh, I'm not talking about those! I'm talking about something brand new that I just call tires!'

Semantics count.

[Truth Warrior]

Love it.

'I have a great new idea--and it'll work! It'll solve everything! We just use tires!'

'How will rings of inflatable rubber help?'

'Oh, I'm not talking about those! I'm talking about something brand new that I just call tires!'

Semantics count. Five years in Missouri, "SHOW ME!"

Yes they do. Hence my penchant for dictionaries. ;)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none)

[tremendoustie]

Why not CORRECT the "SCARE"? People weren't BORN scared of it!

Because the meaning matters a lot more than the word you use to describe it.

There are two possible goals. The first is to actually live free and achieve a voluntary society. The second is to redeem the word anarchist so that people don't react negatively two it.

If the first of these goals were not infinitely more important to you than the second, to the point where you would completely forgo the second in order to have a greater measure of the first, then I think you'd be out of your mind.

Kill the second goal, because it is hampering the first. It's just a word, let it die. The meaning is what matters. If people want to call freedom "kumquats" I don't care, as long as I get to live it.

[acptulsa]

Five years in Missouri, "SHOW ME!"

Yes they do. Hence my penchant for dictionaries. ;)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none)

Whose intelligence are you insulting by offering the entymology of a word and trying to pass it off as the word's definition? Certainly not mine...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

[Truth Warrior]

Whose intelligence are you insulting by offering the entymology of a word and trying to pass it off as the word's definition? Certainly not mine...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy What happened to "tires"? :rolleyes:

So, how did we get from:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none)

to

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy)

Perhaps SOME "archist" agenda "fear" manipulation, over time? :rolleyes:

[constituent]

An absence of governmental authority.

I recommend the piece posted by TW, "What is Anarchy?"

IMO, you will find it informative, and it will certainly change your whole perspective on "an" anarchy, promise.

good to see you, btw.

[sailor]

I was actually talking about this with a friend yesterday and she raised the point that even in the most primitive social settings a tribe or other similar form of leadership is going to emerge. The real question is, if you are in that tribe and decide you don't like how it is being run are you allowed to leave? Are they going to come after you and tax you or kill you if you do? In that sense I think voluntary leadership and law can be moral if it does not claim sovereignty over land it does not use and over people who want no part of it.

Yeah, a ruler and a leader are two different things. Ruler commands physical power (hard power) wheres a leader only commands influence (soft power).

In a tribe you were allowed to leave at any time. You just pack up your tent and you go on your own. There were cases when an indian tribe would split and half would go to a reservation, but the other half would refuse and stayed on.

But it is in practice a little more complicated in such primitive conditions. There being very little accumulated capital there is very little division of labour. So there is no one you can hire to protect you. You must take care of it yourself. So it is very, very benefitial for you to not leave your clan, but to remain with it for reasons of defense. In fact in such conditions to be banished from the clan is one of the most severe punishment that can happen to you. As it means there will be no one who will back you up or vouch for you. (This punishment was usually reserved for irredimable troublemakers as the clan got tired of having to bail them out over and over again.)

[sailor]

Secondly and related, excepting the Law of Gravity how do you enforce these 'laws'--be they 'natural' or not--on those who disagree? And once you do, do you or do you not have a 'state'?

:eek: Law isn`t something that is imposed from above. It is not something you have to enforce on everyone who disagrees. They are perfectly entitled to disagree. Law has no mandate on people`s thoughts.


One person enforcing a 'law' is a rogue and potentially no better than a criminal himself; two or more people doing it is 'collectivist'. Simple, isn't it?

Nonsense. So a burglar walks into my home and I apprehend him so now I am a rogue? Or if I had a family member aid me I am now a collectivist?? :eek:

[acptulsa]

:eek: Law isn`t something that is imposed from above. It is not something you have to enforce on everyone who disagrees.

Pay your taxes? Happy about it?


They are perfectly entitled to disagree. Law has no mandate on people`s thoughts.

The Imperial Japanese disagreed.


:Nonsense. So a burglar walks into my home and I apprehend him so now I am a rogue?

In some states, yes. In many countries, too. You know you aren't supposed to help yourself--that's what government mommy is for.


Or if I had a family member aid me I am now a collectivist?? :eek:

Well?

All joking aside, I think you're smart enough to have understood my points. I didn't assume you were talking about clans--and even if you were, if everyone defers to one--the eldest, say--that pushes the boundaries of anarchy.

[sailor]

In anarchy law is private rather than public. If you feel your natural (god-given) rights have been violated you can seek justice at a private court of law. There is no public law that must be imposed on all just because it is the whim of some arbitrary legislature.

That is the gist of it and something that should anwser all of the points you`ve raised.

[Invalid]

First goal: smash the Federal Governments and restore state sovereignty and no central government

Second goal: smash the states

[Invalid]

What do you mean by fight anyway?

If you mean "fight" by ignoring us while we go vote for some 3rd party candidate who won't win as per normal, then I guess that means fight.

[weslinder]

I recommend the piece posted by TW, "What is Anarchy?"

IMO, you will find it informative, and it will certainly change your whole perspective on "an" anarchy, promise.

good to see you, btw.

I read it, and I disagree with its premise. The closest thing we've had to this anarchistic utopia that I hear so often from anarchists is the pre-settlement American Frontier. When trappers and traders were in the American West before the settlers made it. But in reality, they lived within government, and a set of laws. They lived within the arbitrary sets of rules that was given to them by the Native American Chiefs. If they didn't, they died for infringing on hunting grounds.

Similarly, all of the frontier settlements might not have had a National government or a State government, but they had government, whether coded or de facto. Someone was always there to arbitrate disputes, call the town together for common defense, maybe even perform some charity work. He might have been an elected leader, a religious leader, the largest landowner, the most charismatic person, or the guy who gave the most goodies, but someone or several someones took that leadership role.

[Truth Warrior]

Pay your taxes? Happy about it?



The Imperial Japanese disagreed.



In some states, yes. In many countries, too. You know you aren't supposed to help yourself--that's what government mommy is for.



Well?

All joking aside, I think you're smart enough to have understood my points. I didn't assume you were talking about clans--and even if you were, if everyone defers to one--the eldest, say--that pushes the boundaries of anarchy.

Ahh, you're back. :rolleyes:


What happened to "tires"? :rolleyes:

So, how did we get from:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none)

to

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy)

Perhaps SOME "archist" agenda "fear" manipulation, over time? :rolleyes:

[sailor]

Someone was always there to arbitrate disputes, call the town together for common defense, maybe even perform some charity work. He might have been an elected leader, a religious leader, the largest landowner, the most charismatic person, or the guy who gave the most goodies, but someone or several someones took that leadership role.

Funny.

It reminds of Huck Finn who claimed the ground bellow their baloon can`t possibly be Indiana because he saw it an atlas that Indiana was all pink.

So because this situation does not align with your prejudices of how anarchy looks like, this can`t possibly be anarchy?

The state was absent. Therefore it was anarchy. Anarchy = a lack of state. That is all that is to it.

What, you think in an anarchy people are suddenly going to become vulgar induviduals and cut all relations with everyone around them? Of course there are stil going to be people of influence. What is more, in anarchy there is a market for leadership! Which is one of its greatest benefits. Because the market will provide much more competent, worthy and honorable leaders (to those that want them) than the crap that is forced on us (all of us) today.

[constituent]

I read it, and I disagree with its premise.

How so?

[Truth Warrior]

I read it, and I disagree with its premise. The closest thing we've had to this anarchistic utopia that I hear so often from anarchists is the pre-settlement American Frontier. When trappers and traders were in the American West before the settlers made it. But in reality, they lived within government, and a set of laws. They lived within the arbitrary sets of rules that was given to them by the Native American Chiefs. If they didn't, they died for infringing on hunting grounds.

Similarly, all of the frontier settlements might not have had a National government or a State government, but they had government, whether coded or de facto. Someone was always there to arbitrate disputes, call the town together for common defense, maybe even perform some charity work. He might have been an elected leader, a religious leader, the largest landowner, the most charismatic person, or the guy who gave the most goodies, but someone or several someones took that leadership role. Where's this "UTOPIA" crap keep coming from? All of the BS UTOPIAN authors that I know of are archists. Always just a little bit farther over the horizon and the rainbow, hang in there with us, generation after generation after generation. :p :rolleyes:

[weslinder]

How so?

The dictionary definition of anarchy is absence of government (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy). Schaffer makes the argument that since frontier towns didn't have courts and other constructs of typical Western Government, that they didn't have government, while ignoring the fact that most of the functions of Government were done by de facto leaders. In some language, that might be anarchy, but for people who speak English, that's oligarchy or tribalism.

(Besides, I find a law school professor professing to be an anarchist most ironic.)

[Truth Warrior]

Is 99% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 90% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 75% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 50% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 25% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 10% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 5% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 3% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 1% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 0% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Where does UTOPIA kick in? :confused: We passed ALL of those numbers GROWING the state. Did the "leaving UTOPIA" bell ring?

:rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Is 99% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 90% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 75% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 50% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 25% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 10% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 5% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 3% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 1% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Is 0% of today's government UTOPIAN?

Where does UTOPIA kick in? :confused: We passed ALL of those numbers GROWING the state. Did the "leaving UTOPIA" bell ring?

:rolleyes:

I think there's a utopia fee to pay to the gov'ment first. :p:(:mad:

[sailor]

In some language, that might be anarchy, but for people who speak English, that's oligarchy or tribalism.

A load of crap. In an oligarchy the oligarchy claims and enforces a monopoly on performing certain functions. There was no forcefull monopoly in this case.

[Invalid]

We need competing governments.

[Truth Warrior]

I think there's a utopia fee to pay to the gov'ment first. :p:(:mad: I'd say THEY OWE US, MEGA trillions in gold and silver, not to mention the lives lost. :mad:

[Theocrat]

Funny.

It reminds of Huck Finn who claimed the ground bellow their baloon can`t possibly be Indiana because he saw it an atlas that Indiana was all pink.

So because this situation does not align with your prejudices of how anarchy looks like, this can`t possibly be anarchy?

The state was absent. Therefore it was anarchy. Anarchy = a lack of state. That is all that is to it.

What, you think in an anarchy people are suddenly going to become vulgar induviduals and cut all relations with everyone around them? Of course there are stil going to be people of influence. What is more, in anarchy there is a market for leadership! Which is one of its greatest benefits. Because the market will provide much more competent, worthy and honorable leaders (to those that want them) than the crap that is forced on us (all of us) today.

The key to the success of any society, whether it has a central government or not, is religion and morality. Religion gives us the basis for what morality is and why we should have it. If people are immoral, then they will behave immorally in civilian affairs as well as political offices. It will lead to a destruction of whatever institution they enact themselves in. A governmental body is not going to work to the benefit of a people when its participants are not of the right moral quality. Similarly, a society with no institutionalized government will not work to the benefit of everyone when there are immoral people living therein.

Many of you have a false look about the nature of men. You see them as only economic agents. Therefore, if a society only has the right economic conditions and system in place, then that will lead to the peace and prosperity of all, even without government. This is what I've come to understand from those who are anarcho-capitalists. The problem with this belief is that it fails to account for how sinful men can be, especially in a market-oriented society. For instance, in such a society, what stops the largest mob from taking private property from other people for their own economic benefit? How do victims of theft and murder receive a guarantee of restitution and justice from their oppressors? Since there are no universal, obligatory statutes which compel "criminals" to be held responsible for their "crimes" (everything is voluntary), then those "criminals" can get away with their "crimes." This is one of the serious defects of an anarchical society.

Once again, if people are not moral, then their civilization will be immoral. That is the foundation for any society, and it needs to be grasped before we talk about any form of government which would work to universal weal of everyone. Societies can fail with government, but they can also fail without government. This failure is based on whether men themselves are of the moral capacity to govern themselves rightly by a universal moral law, which comes from a moral Lawgiver.

As I've said many times here, anarchy is just another form of tyranny, on the opposite side of totalitarianism. Instead of being a top-down approach to enslaving society, it begins from the bottom-up approach, and usually it is done by those who have the most might, money, and/or materials. Anarchy is a society which leaves every man to do that which is right in his own eyes, and history has shown when that happens, chaos, confusion, and conflict will follow. On a global scale, just think of the actions and beliefs of Germany before World War I. They were under no obligation to treat any nation with decency and respect, especially by the principles of the so-called NAP. It finally came to a point where they had to be restrained by a treaty.

On a smaller scale, the same would happen in a society where there was no government institution. Just think what would happen if by the end of next week all governmental bodies in the U.S. shut down, and there were no longer any police, courts, or prisons instituted. There is no way anarchy would ensure that murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. would not harm the general public. As a matter of fact, it would guarantee these malefactors would do so, all in the name of "no governmental authority" and "voluntary compliance." I'm sorry, but that is not going to happen, and our human natures will not make it so. So just give up on the naive idea of anarchy working. It's will not bring heaven upon earth, as much as the anarchists and "voluntaryists" would have us believe.

[Truth Warrior]

The key to the success of any society, whether it has a central government or not, is religion and morality. Religion gives us the basis for what morality is and why we should have it. If people are immoral, then they will behave immorally in civilian affairs as well as political offices. It will lead to a destruction of whatever institution they enact themselves in. A governmental body is not going to work to the benefit of a people when its participants are not of the right moral quality. Similarly, a society with no institutionalized government will not work to the benefit of everyone when there are immoral people living therein.

Many of you have a false look about the nature of men. You see them as only economic agents. Therefore, if a society only has the right economic conditions and system in place, then that will lead to the peace and prosperity of all, even without government. This is what I've come to understand from those who are anarcho-capitalists. The problem with this belief is that it fails to account for how sinful men can be, especially in a market-oriented society. For instance, in such a society, what stops the largest mob from taking private property from other people for their own economic benefit? How do victims of theft and murder receive a guarantee of restitution and justice from their oppressors? Since there are no universal, obligatory statutes which compel "criminals" to be held responsible for their "crimes" (everything is voluntary), then those "criminals" can get away with their "crimes." This is one of the serious defects of an anarchical society.

Once again, if people are not moral, then their civilization will be immoral. That is the foundation for any society, and it needs to be grasped before we talk about any form of government which would work to universal weal of everyone. Societies can fail with government, but they can also fail without government. This failure is based on whether men themselves are of the moral capacity to govern themselves rightly by a universal moral law, which comes from a moral Lawgiver.

As I've said many times here, anarchy is just another form of tyranny, on the opposite side of totalitarianism. Instead of being a top-down approach to enslaving society, it begins from the bottom-up approach, and usually it is done by those who have the most might, money, and/or materials. Anarchy is a society which leaves every man to do that which is right in his own eyes, and history has shown when that happens, chaos, confusion, and conflict will follow. On a global scale, just think of the actions and beliefs of Germany before World War I. They were under no obligation to treat any nation with decency and respect, especially by the principles of the so-called NAP. It finally came to a point where they had to be restrained by a treaty.

On a smaller scale, the same would happen in a society where there was no government institution. Just think what would happen if by the end of next week all governmental bodies in the U.S. shut down, and there were no longer any police, courts, or prisons instituted. There is no way anarchy would ensure that murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. would not harm the general public. As a matter of fact, it would guarantee these malefactors would do so, all in the name of "no governmental authority" and "voluntary compliance." I'm sorry, but that is not going to happen, and our human natures will not make it so. So just give up on the naive idea of anarchy working. It's will not bring heaven upon earth, as much as the anarchists and "voluntaryists" would have us believe. You remind me more of UEW every day. This is NOT a good thing.



"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

[weslinder]

A load of crap. In an oligarchy the oligarchy claims and enforces a monopoly on performing certain functions. There was no forcefull monopoly in this case.

Really? In these frontier settlements, what happened to those who decided to not obey a judgment from these "informal leaders"?

[ChaosControl]

Anarchy is to the right as socialism/communism is to the left. Neither can exist in reality, only in discussion. Sure you could put it into place, but it'd be gone within an hour as things would organize and a new government would be formed. People would all have to have a somewhat similar view set, the idea of harm none, which people will never have.

Government is bad and all, but we'll never function with out it. The trick is to keep it minimal and in check. Make certain government always fears the people and always acts in the best interest of the people rather than in the best interests of government.

I'd say minarchy is the best realistic approach.

[Theocrat]

You remind me more of UEW every day. This is NOT a good thing.



"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

You know, for a truth warrior, you don't seem to be able to comprehend truth very well. Is your response supposed to be a rational rebuttal to what I've written?

[Truth Warrior]

The Real World Order Is Chaotic (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer185.html)
Much as it bothers the god-kings.

[Truth Warrior]

You know, for a truth warrior, you don't seem to be able to comprehend truth very well. Is your response supposed to be a rational rebuttal to what I've written? Me too you, brother. ;)

Nope, just a very sad general impression overview. :( It goes FAR beyond your post. Running away, evading questions, ignoring posts, etc., etc..

[Theocrat]

The Real World Order Is Chaotic (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer185.html)
Much as it bothers the god-kings.

I'm sorry, TW, but I don't presume to scan what Butler Shaffer has to say about the natural order of chaos. Do you have the original document he wrote? ;)

[Truth Warrior]

I'm sorry, TW, but I don't presume to scan what Butler Shaffer has to say about the natural order of chaos. Do you have the original document he wrote? ;) I've read copies of your book. The author is/was the question. Unlike with yours, you may email Butler and ask him. My guess is that his original is electronic.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan

Kinda like with macroevolution.

[tremendoustie]

Anarchy is to the right as socialism/communism is to the left. Neither can exist in reality, only in discussion. Sure you could put it into place, but it'd be gone within an hour as things would organize and a new government would be formed. People would all have to have a somewhat similar view set, the idea of harm none, which people will never have.

Government is bad and all, but we'll never function with out it. The trick is to keep it minimal and in check. Make certain government always fears the people and always acts in the best interest of the people rather than in the best interests of government.

I'd say minarchy is the best realistic approach.

You are right that people would organize, but if a large enough majority of those who organize subscribe to the non agression principle, what they would set up would be voluntary -- and it would be strong enough to defend against those who do wish to use violence to get their will.

There are such things as voluntary organizations - and if enough people join them, they will be stronger than the coersive ones.

[heavenlyboy34]

Anarchy is to the right as socialism/communism is to the left. Neither can exist in reality, only in discussion. Sure you could put it into place, but it'd be gone within an hour as things would organize and a new government would be formed. People would all have to have a somewhat similar view set, the idea of harm none, which people will never have.

Government is bad and all, but we'll never function with out it. The trick is to keep it minimal and in check. Make certain government always fears the people and always acts in the best interest of the people rather than in the best interests of government.

I'd say minarchy is the best realistic approach.

What "we"? Is there a mouse in your pocket? :confused: Have you done as much study on autarchy as the authors posted by the autarchists in these forums-or or the autarchists themselves? Where can I read your highly-researched books to find the PROOF of your claims? :confused:

[Conza88]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2032699&postcount=98

Never addressed LE.

You ignored it again. Go figure. And I have no problem with that, as long as you're not intellectually dishonest and continue to proliferate intellectual bile... without first presenting some kind of coherent response to my arguments that completely destroy the Birch paradigm :)

[Kraig]

Anarchy is to the right as socialism/communism is to the left. Neither can exist in reality, only in discussion.

Both have existed in reality.



Government is bad and all, but we'll never function with out it.

Speak for yourself.

[sailor]

Really? In these frontier settlements, what happened to those who decided to not obey a judgment from these "informal leaders"?

On the 78th Street what happens when you disobey a judgement of the 78th Street gang?

So I must assume the gang is a monopolist on the 78th street? :eek:

[jmlfod87]

To Conservatives,

Do you believe competition is beneficial in the production of clothes?

Do you believe competition is beneficial in the production of food?

Do you believe competition is beneficial in the production of shelter?

Why then, pry tell, do you not believe competition would be beneficial in the production of justice?

[Theocrat]

To Conservatives,

Do you believe competition is beneficial in the production of clothes?

Do you believe competition is beneficial in the production of food?

Do you believe competition is beneficial in the production of shelter?

Why then, pry tell, do you not believe competition would be beneficial in the production of justice?

Clothes, food, and shelter are products based on personal preference. Justice is not, for it is based on righteousness and equity of law. The end result of justice is not profit, like it would be in a market. The end result of justice is reconciliation or restitution of a crime committed by the guilty to the innocent.

[jmlfod87]

Clothes, food, and shelter are products based on personal preference. Justice is not, for it is based on righteousness and equity of law. The end result of justice is not profit, like it would be in a market. The end result of justice is reconciliation or restitution of a crime committed by the guilty to the innocent.

Justice is not based on personal preference?

Justice means the same thing to everyone?

The end result of justice is not profit?

Do judges, prison guards, wardens, lawyers, and jurors not profit from our current justice system?

[Theocrat]

Justice is not based on personal preference?

No, as I explained in my previous post.


Justice means the same thing to everyone?

No, but justice is based on an absolute standard of righteousness. Some people have the right understanding of this, while others do not. It depends on the moral condition of the human heart.


The end result of justice is not profit?

Do judges, prison guards, wardens, lawyers, and jurors not profit from our current justice system?

Maybe I should have cleared up what I meant by "profit." I was referring to economic or financial profit. So, no, justice is not based on that end. The services offered by judges, prison guards, wardens, lawyers, and jurors may bring them personal satisfaction and profit of doing their jobs, but the standards and statutes of law which order our society are not based on economic laws of supply and demand. Murder is still wrong, no matter how much it may cost to write laws forbidding it or punish a murderer, for example.

[weslinder]

On the 78th Street what happens when you disobey a judgement of the 78th Street gang?

So I must assume the gang is a monopolist on the 78th street? :eek:

Exactly. Gang rule is another great example of oligarchy. My knowledge of frontier history is that the community leaders of frontier settlements had a stronger respect for rule of law than gang thugs, but they'd often settle a judgment through threat of force.

[jmlfod87]

Me: justice is based on personal preference?

You: No

Me: So justice means the same thing to everyone?

You: No

HINT: If everyone has a different preference for justice then justice is based on.....

------


Maybe I should have cleared up what I meant by "profit." I was referring to economic or financial profit. So, no, justice is not based on that end. The services offered by judges, prison guards, wardens, lawyers, and jurors may bring them personal satisfaction and profit of doing their jobs, but the standards and statutes of law which order our society are not based on economic laws of supply and demand. Murder is still wrong, no matter how much it may cost to write laws forbidding it or punish a murderer, for example

This made me laugh. So you admit judges etc. earn a profit but you fail to realize that they are the ones that interpret the "statutes of law". And don't the politicans who write the laws earn proift too?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that justice is a product just like every other? If you want the highest quality justice at the lowest possible price wouldn't competition produce such a product?

[Theocrat]

Me: justice is based on personal preference?

You: No

Me: So justice means the same thing to everyone?

You: No

------



This made me laugh. So you admit judges etc. earn a profit but you fail to realize that they are the ones that interpret the "statutes of law". And don't the politicans who write the laws earn proift too?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that justice is a product just like every other? If you want the highest quality justice at the lowest possible price wouldn't competition produce such a product?

Maybe this scenario will help explain. You live in a home with a wife and kid. I live down the street with a gang of twenty ninja assassins. We come to your home one day because we want to have some fun with your gorgeous wife. Naturally, you deny us from doing such a thing. We decide to kill her instead, and we take out your kid, too.

You manage to escape, and you go to one of the private justice centers to press charges against me and my gang. They send us a subpoena to attend their private court. We decide not to because they're just a private company who makes too much money for themselves anyway. Besides, we're the toughest gang of ninja assassins in the world. Under what obligation should justice be served to us? What is the private court going to do to compel us to attend a trial? Threaten us? Send another mob after us to enforce their standard of justice upon us?

[sailor]

My knowledge of frontier history is that the community leaders of frontier settlements had a stronger respect for rule of law than gang thugs, but they'd often settle a judgment through threat of force.

And so what? Anarchy is not a lack of force (you would stil have retalitory force against the criminals). Anarchy means that there is no entity which claims to have a righful monopoly on dishing out force for such a purpose.

The leaders in frontier settlements were not a unified entity like the state is. They competed against eachother for influence and sometimes disagreed and clashed (not violently).

Maybe one year most of the sway in town was held by the preacher, but the next year it was the rich saloon owner and so on.



Exactly. Gang rule is another great example of oligarchy.

Nonsense. No gang claims it is the only entity which can legitimetly dish out force.

If you retaliate against somebody who killed your family member in cold blood you will be deemed a criminal and thrown into jail by the state for daring to do a function which the state claims only she can do.

A street gang on the other hand won`t care.

[jmlfod87]

From Murray Rothbard's masterpiece 'For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto"


Let us now take the case we mentioned before. Mr. Jones is robbed, his hired detective agency decides that one Brown committed the crime, and Brown refuses to concede his guilt. What then? In the first place, we must recognize that there is at present no overall world court or world government enforcing its decrees; yet while we live in a state of "international anarchy" there is little or no problem in disputes between private citizens of two countries. Suppose that right now, for example, a citizen of Uruguay claims that he has been swindled by a citizen of Argentina. Which court does he go to? He goes to his own, i.e., the victim's or the plaintiff's court. The case proceeds in the Uruguayan court, and its decision is honored by the Argentinian court. The same is true if an American feels he has been swindled by a Canadian, and so on. In Europe after the Roman Empire, when German tribes lived side by side and in the same areas, if a Visigoth felt that he had been injured by a Frank, he took the case to his own court, and the decision was generally accepted by the Franks. Going to the plaintiff's court is the rational libertarian procedure as well, since the victim or plaintiff is the one who is aggrieved, and who naturally takes the case to his own court. So, in our case, Jones would go to the Prudential Court Company to charge Brown with theft.

It is possible, of course, that Brown is also a client of the Prudential Court, in which case there is no problem. The Prudential's decision covers both parties, and becomes binding. But one important stipulation is that no coercive subpoena power can be used against Brown, because he must be considered innocent until he is convicted. But Brown would be served with a voluntary subpoena, a notice that he is being tried on such and such a charge and inviting him or his legal representative to appear. If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and [p. 226] this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon — a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim.

What, however, if Brown does not recognize the Prudential Court? What if he is a client of the Metropolitan Court Company? Here the case becomes more difficult. What will happen then? First, victim Jones pleads his case in the Prudential Court. If Brown is found innocent, this ends the controversy. Suppose, however, that defendant Brown is found guilty. If he does nothing, the court's judgment proceeds against him. Suppose, however, Brown then takes the case to the Metropolitan Court Company, pleading inefficiency or venality by Prudential. The case will then be heard by Metropolitan. If Metropolitan also finds Brown guilty, this too ends the controversy and Prudential will proceed against Brown with dispatch. Suppose, however, that Metropolitan finds Brown innocent of the charge. Then what? Will the two courts and their arms-wielding marshals shoot it out in the streets?

Once again, this would clearly be irrational and self-destructive behavior on the part of the courts. An essential part of their judicial service to their clients is the provision of just, objective, and peacefully functioning decisions — the best and most objective way of arriving at the truth of who committed the crime. Arriving at a decision and then allowing chaotic gunplay would scarcely be considered valuable judicial service by their customers. Thus, an essential part of any court's service to its clients would be an appeals procedure. In short, every court would agree to abide by an appeals trial, as decided by a voluntary arbitrator to whom Metropolitan and Prudential would now turn. The appeals judge would make his decision, and the result of this third trial would be treated as binding on the guilty. The Prudential court would then proceed to enforcement.

[sailor]

Really? In these frontier settlements, what happened to those who decided to not obey a judgment from these "informal leaders"?

And BTW it`s redundant to talk about "informal leaders". All leadership is informal. Only rulership can be formal.

[Josh_LA]

Conservatism is not a means to an end, it merely tries to slow down the advance of socialism rather going in the opposite direction. It seems it is even failing in it's limited objective.

I agree.

[heavenlyboy34]

From Murray Rothbard's masterpiece 'For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto"

Thanks. Reminds me of "The Case For Liberty". :cool::D:)

[Theocrat]

From Murray Rothbard's masterpiece 'For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto"

I don't want to know Murray Rothbard's perspective of private courts. I'm not addressing him. Frankly, I find his excerpt quite naive and laughable because he begs so many questions of why anyone should be compelled to go to any court for any crime. If a person doesn't want to go to a private court, then he doesn't have to. As a matter of fact, a person with enough money could theoretically buy out all of the private courts.

Now, what is your answer to my scenario?

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't want to know Murray Rothbard's perspective of private courts. I'm not addressing him. Frankly, I find his excerpt quite naive and laughable because he begs so many questions of why anyone should be compelled to go to any court for any crime. If a person doesn't want to go to a private court, then he doesn't have to. As a matter of fact, a person with enough money could theoretically buy out all of the private courts.

Now, what is your answer to my scenario?

The same could be said of government courts. ;) What makes private courts unique is that they would be competent and compete in the free market-plus, private courts would be self-sustaining (just like lawyers, notary publics, etc.). It would seem that you yourself are being naive in assuming that government is virtuous-and you have yet to prove that government is by nature virtuous (if you managed to find a document that shows this, please link to it).

[Kraig]

The same could be said of government courts. ;) What makes private courts unique is that they would be competent and compete in the free market-plus, private courts would be self-sustaining (just like lawyers, notary publics, etc.). It would seem that you yourself are being naive in assuming that government is virtuous-and you have yet to prove that government is by nature virtuous (if you managed to find a document that shows this, please link to it).

He's gonna link you the Bible.

[sailor]

The same could be said of government courts. ;) What makes private courts unique is that they would be competent and compete in the free market-plus, private courts would be self-sustaining (just like lawyers, notary publics, etc.). It would seem that you yourself are being naive in assuming that government is virtuous-and you have yet to prove that government is by nature virtuous (if you managed to find a document that shows this, please link to it).

The unique thing is that if you buy the government you get to write the law. Not so if you buy all the private courts. Because you can stil not stop new rival courts from forming.

And anyone buying all the courts has to be the stupidest investment ever. You`ll just lose all the money as people get suspicious about such a setup and decide they want to patronise the new courts that just got founded instead.

[heavenlyboy34]

He's gonna link you the Bible.

I would not be surprised. That's his favorite source for fallacious appeals to authority-followed closely by the CONstitution. :rolleyes:;) lolz

[Theocrat]

The same could be said of government courts. ;) What makes private courts unique is that they would be competent and compete in the free market-plus, private courts would be self-sustaining (just like lawyers, notary publics, etc.). It would seem that you yourself are being naive in assuming that government is virtuous-and you have yet to prove that government is by nature virtuous (if you managed to find a document that shows this, please link to it).

You already know where I'm going to take you, so there's no need for me to provide a link. Once again, you have not answered the question of why should any defendant be compelled to go to a private court, especially when he is not paying for it. In my scenario, the gang of ninja assassins have no reason to be tried in a private court for killing the people they did. Their standard of justice is different than the plaintiff and private court.

The only proactive thing the private court could do is go to the residence of the gang and tell them they need to be tried. But then again, the gang can kill the messenger of the private court for trespassing on their private property and threatening them with an ultimatum. To the ninja assassins, that is justice. Who can stop them?

[sailor]

To the ninja assassins, that is justice. Who can stop them?

Is that one of them send a maniac to catch a maniac fables? Is the anwser Sylvester Stallone?

[Theocrat]

Is that one of them send a maniac to catch a maniac fables? Is the anwser Sylvester Stallone?

No. It's a scenario used to show how anarchy can not bring about justice in a civilized society.

[sailor]

You don`t invite people to a private court for killing someone. That is for disputes. You apprehend them and bring them in. The difference is anybody can bring them in. (Of course if they are later found innocent they can press charges against you for kidnapping so you better be sure.)

Alternatively you find them guilty in absentia, then send Dirty Harry or Angry Mob to their secret base to kill them into tiny pieces.

[heavenlyboy34]

You already know where I'm going to take you, so there's no need for me to provide a link. Once again, you have not answered the question of why should any defendant be compelled to go to a private court, especially when he is not paying for it. In my scenario, the gang of ninja assassins have no reason to be tried in a private court for killing the people they did. Their standard of justice is different than the plaintiff and private court.

The only proactive thing the private court could do is go to the residence of the gang and tell them they need to be tried. But then again, the gang can kill the messenger of the private court for trespassing on their private property and threatening them with an ultimatum. To the ninja assassins, that is justice. Who can stop them?

Since you have no discernible knowledge of the entrepreneurial market for justice, you have no knowledge of what the free market could provide. :p What part of "The Market For Liberty" or Rothbardian/autarchist free market justice theory have you disproven in your rants? None, to my knowledge. :D Just another block of subjective, ignorant rhapsody. Your narrow vision and pro-state bias causes you to fail once again. :( This is not a personal thing against you; seriously-just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts. :) Please cite the books on autarchist justice you've read to back your assertions so I can help you understand it better.

[Theocrat]

Since you have no discernible knowledge of the entrepreneurial market for justice, you have no knowledge of what the free market could provide. :p What part of "The Market For Liberty" or Rothbardian/autarchist free market justice theory have you disproven in your rants? None, to my knowledge. :D Just another block of subjective, ignorant rhapsody. Your narrow vision and pro-state bias causes you to fail once again. :( This is not a personal thing against you; seriously-just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts. :) Please cite the books on autarchist justice you've read to back your assertions so I can help you understand it better.

"Market" and "justice" are not complementary ideas, HB. That is your first mistake. I've disproven the Rothbardian/autarchist justice theory by its failure to make justice legitimate in a society of just voluntary living. There can be no compulsion to go to court for anything in a society of non-compulsion. Yet, justice demands that sometimes people like criminals go to court to be tried because it's not in the nature of criminals to go to court on their own. It's like inviting a bank robber to go to prison for larceny. People have to be forced to do what's right sometimes when they break the law. That is a fact of reality and human nature.

[tremendoustie]

You already know where I'm going to take you, so there's no need for me to provide a link. Once again, you have not answered the question of why should any defendant be compelled to go to a private court, especially when he is not paying for it. In my scenario, the gang of ninja assassins have no reason to be tried in a private court for killing the people they did. Their standard of justice is different than the plaintiff and private court.

The only proactive thing the private court could do is go to the residence of the gang and tell them they need to be tried. But then again, the gang can kill the messenger of the private court for trespassing on their private property and threatening them with an ultimatum. To the ninja assassins, that is justice. Who can stop them?

Theo, the same situation could happen now, exactly the way you describe. The only thing which would prevent it, would be if the government is strong enough to defeat the ninjas.

Why would our government be strong enough to defeat the ninjas, unless the cumulative economic power of the non ninjas, who finance the government, is greater than that of the ninjas?

In a free system, this would still be true -- we as a group would still be stronger than the ninjas. Therefore, our strongest protection agencies would no doubt also be stronger than the ninjas, just as a government would be -- simply because there are more people who believe murders are wrong than there are ninjas, and these greater numbers hold greater economic power.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Market" and "justice" are not complementary ideas, HB. That is your first mistake. I've disproven the Rothbardian/autarchist justice theory by its failure to make justice legitimate in a society of just voluntary living. There can be no compulsion to go to court for anything in a society of non-compulsion. Yet, justice demands that sometimes people like criminals go to court to be tried because it's not in the nature of criminals to go to court on their own. It's like inviting a bank robber to go to prison for larceny. People have to be forced to do what's right sometimes when they break the law. That is a fact of reality and human nature.

False. You have not sufficiently addressed the ideas put forward in autarchist theory. You've made a great deal of wild claims about what you THINK it is. Go read some books on it and get back to me with some FACTS. Cite some actual BOOKS, not just blogs. Your OPINIONS are very ill-informed and irrelevant to the discussion. :p

[Truth Warrior]

What do vengeance, retribution and punishment have to do with justice? :rolleyes:

To ever call what the state does "justice" is obscene and pretty much psychotic.<IMHO> You may call a turd a gold bar. That doesn't make it one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice)

So many BARBARIANS, so little time. :(


"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." -- Albert Einstein

[jmlfod87]

You already know where I'm going to take you, so there's no need for me to provide a link. Once again, you have not answered the question of why should any defendant be compelled to go to a private court, especially when he is not paying for it. In my scenario, the gang of ninja assassins have no reason to be tried in a private court for killing the people they did. Their standard of justice is different than the plaintiff and private court.

The only proactive thing the private court could do is go to the residence of the gang and tell them they need to be tried. But then again, the gang can kill the messenger of the private court for trespassing on their private property and threatening them with an ultimatum. To the ninja assassins, that is justice. Who can stop them?


Maybe you should go back and read what Rothbard wrote. NO ONE IS COMPELLED TO GO TO PRIVATE COURT. If they choose not to THEY WILL BE TRIED IN ABSENTIA.

I really think this argument is futile because as I read your writings I am seriously starting to question your grasp of reality.

No rich person could "buy off" a court, because once it is found out that you can "buy off" the court, the court will lose its credibility and integrity and customers will flock elsewhere. Meanwhile in today's system it is possible to buy off judges and jurors because even if people find out about it, there isn't anywhere else to go for justice.

[weslinder]

And so what? Anarchy is not a lack of force (you would stil have retalitory force against the criminals). Anarchy means that there is no entity which claims to have a righful monopoly on dishing out force for such a purpose.

The leaders in frontier settlements were not a unified entity like the state is. They competed against eachother for influence and sometimes disagreed and clashed (not violently).

Maybe one year most of the sway in town was held by the preacher, but the next year it was the rich saloon owner and so on.




Nonsense. No gang claims it is the only entity which can legitimetly dish out force.

If you retaliate against somebody who killed your family member in cold blood you will be deemed a criminal and thrown into jail by the state for daring to do a function which the state claims only she can do.

A street gang on the other hand won`t care.

So your argument is that anarchy is a vacuum in which the biggest guns will become the government. I think history agrees with you.

[Pennsylvania]

So your argument is that anarchy is a vacuum in which the biggest guns will become the government. I think history agrees with you.

Do you think that was the case in Celtic Ireland?

[Kraig]

Maybe you should go back and read what Rothbard wrote. NO ONE IS COMPELLED TO GO TO PRIVATE COURT. If they choose not to THEY WILL BE TRIED IN ABSENTIA.

I really think this argument is futile because as I read your writings I am seriously starting to question your grasp of reality.

No rich person could "buy off" a court, because once it is found out that you can "buy off" the court, the court will lose its credibility and integrity and customers will flock elsewhere. Meanwhile in today's system it is possible to buy off judges and jurors because even if people find out about it, there isn't anywhere else to go for justice.

Dude a criminal has no more motivation to go do a public court than he would a private court, it's obvious but he just isn't going to get it.

[constituent]

Anarchy is to the right as socialism/communism is to the left. Neither can exist in reality, only in discussion.

Wrong, anarchy exists everyday and in almost all human interactions.

You haven't read the "What is Anarchy?" link posted earlier.

[constituent]

Clothes, food, and shelter are products based on personal preference. Justice is not, for it is based on righteousness and equity of law

"Righteousness and equity of law" are utopian dreams that have not and will not ever exist in reality.

This is the true "dream land."

[heavenlyboy34]

"Righteousness and equity of law" are utopian dreams that have not and will not ever exist in reality.

This is the true "dream land."
qft! :)

[Kraig]

Wrong, anarchy exists everyday and in almost all human interactions.

You haven't read the "What is Anarchy?" link posted earlier.

Anytime you interact with another human being without the "help" of the government, it is anarchy. :D It's quite easy for me to tell that the anarchist interactions are more profitable than the archist ones.

[sailor]

So your argument is that anarchy is a vacuum in which the biggest guns will become the government. I think history agrees with you.

How dumb are you? :eek:

Can you argue in any other way than misrepresenting the opposing argument? :eek:

I`ve shown frontier towns did indeed exist in anarchy. Now go cry me a river.

[acptulsa]

How dumb are you? :eek:

Can you argue in any other way than misrepresenting the opposing argument? :eek:

I`ve shown frontier towns did indeed exist in anarchy. Now go cry me a river.

He summarized your post pretty well. If that's not what you intended to convey, either learn to make your point clear or go cry a river yourself. You sure aren't supporting your position by being obnoxious.

I'm starting to like this thread. Someone set out to cleave us in two; instead we started needling each other, poke some holes, draw the thread and stitch ourselves more closely together--even as we do the occasional obnoxious exchange. It really is a fine line between minarchy and anarchy, after all. Any enterprise involving more than one person is liable to proceed with one person making decisions. The smaller a group it is, the more likely the 'leader' will be concerned with each member of the group. On that, I hope, we can all stand together.

[Xenophage]

How dumb are you? :eek:

Can you argue in any other way than misrepresenting the opposing argument? :eek:

I`ve shown frontier towns did indeed exist in anarchy. Now go cry me a river.

sailor, shut the fuck up.

[weslinder]

Do you think that was the case in Celtic Ireland?

Celtic Ireland had a tribalist government system.

[acptulsa]

Celtic Ireland had a tribalist government system.

...and got taken over by the English. The Native Americans did, too--and got taken over by a nation. There is safety in numbers. And people are mostly collectivist in nature because only a few of us rugged individualists had ancestors that survived to pass that trait along to us.

Small government on a big scale was once a prominent part of the American moral structure. I don't think there's anyone in this thread who wouldn't consider the restoration of that attitude to be a good thing. Seems to me that the only question here is where do we go from there--and as far as we have to go to get there, I think we have plenty of time to get that question worked out. Doesn't have to happen today.

[weslinder]

I've been poopooing the anarchists, without offering my own input. I shouldn't have. My view is this: Liberty doesn't come from lack of government, because when you have to provide all personal security yourself, you aren't really free. Liberty comes when a government is strong enough to protect you from others, but not strong enough to oppress you or protect you from yourself.

The American Republic, as established by the US Constitution, is the greatest protector of individual liberty that ever existed. The first Union, under the Articles, was too weak to protect individuals from local tyrants. Most other governments are too big and suppress the individual. This government allowed for the greatest expansion of knowledge ever, the abolition of slavery throughout much of the world, and the greatest country that has ever existed.

It certainly wasn't perfect, but it was damn good. So anyone who really believes in liberty should look at that for his starting point. I think Ron Paul would agree.

[constituent]

The American Republic, as established by the US Constitution, is the greatest protector of individual liberty that ever existed.

Unless you were a slave or a "native american," of course.


;)

[Pennsylvania]

Celtic Ireland had a tribalist government system.

again, government != state

[Truth Warrior]

I've been poopooing the anarchists, without offering my own input. I shouldn't have. My view is this: Liberty doesn't come from lack of government, because when you have to provide all personal security yourself, you aren't really free. Liberty comes when a government is strong enough to protect you from others, but not strong enough to oppress you or protect you from yourself.

The American Republic, as established by the US Constitution, is the greatest protector of individual liberty that ever existed. The first Union, under the Articles, was too weak to protect individuals from local tyrants. Most other governments are too big and suppress the individual. This government allowed for the greatest expansion of knowledge ever, the abolition of slavery throughout much of the world, and the greatest country that has ever existed.

It certainly wasn't perfect, but it was damn good. So anyone who really believes in liberty should look at that for his starting point. I think Ron Paul would agree.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/self-government-2/ (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/self-government-2/)

[Theocrat]

Maybe you should go back and read what Rothbard wrote. NO ONE IS COMPELLED TO GO TO PRIVATE COURT. If they choose not to THEY WILL BE TRIED IN ABSENTIA.

I really think this argument is futile because as I read your writings I am seriously starting to question your grasp of reality.

No rich person could "buy off" a court, because once it is found out that you can "buy off" the court, the court will lose its credibility and integrity and customers will flock elsewhere. Meanwhile in today's system it is possible to buy off judges and jurors because even if people find out about it, there isn't anywhere else to go for justice.

If no one is compelled to go to a private court, then what is the importance of them being tried in absentia? It has no legal bearing on them whatsoever. The private court then becomes nothing more than a gossip club against a defendant. Even Rothbard admitted that it was a difficult situation to resolve when people are not compelled to a private court.

You may question my grasp on reality, but that still does not solve the gaping problem in your anarchical utopian justice system. You fail to understand that in order for there to be justice in a society, there has to be a universal standard of morality which is agreed upon by a people. Once that happens, then there needs to be laws made which ensure the peace and prosperity of all citizens against evildoers. There also needs to be institutions which try and punish these criminals. These are a necessity because of sinful human nature. Our Founders understood this so well, and that is why they decided to have a separation of powers so that no one human being could have all the power in society.

In anarchy, it is impossible to have a universal standard of morality agreed upon by citizens. What would compel people to even agree to have morality in the first place? In an anarchical utopia, there is no compulsion because everything is done voluntarily. Anarchy allows every person to do that which is right in his own eyes. There can be no such thing as "justice" in a society like that because justice only becomes relative to a firm or group. One firm or group may think it's okay to rape and pillage society, while another may not. Neither one has the right to assert that their conduct is more just than the other. The fact that you don't realize that is very unfortunate.

While I agree with you that in our current justice system it is possible for judges and jurors to be bought off, you have to be insanely naive to think that would not happen in an anarchical society of private courts, especially with the idea of courts existing based on competition in the market. Sure, people may no longer use the court service if they find out it is bought off, but so what? The courts aren't compulsory in nature anyway, so if a plaintiff wants to have a trial in a "stacked" court, he can do so (especially if the judges and jurors are paid off in his favor). The defendant would be tried in absentia, but I find that even appalling, due to the fact that he's being tried by a court that has been compromised by secret funds. That would be even more reason for a defendant to not use any private court. In an anarchical system of justice, it is the rule of money which determines justice, not the rule of law.

[sdczen]

I reluctantly throw my .02 cents in here.

The title "Anarchists cause tyranny. Conservatives will have to fight them." is the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time. It really shows how ignorant some people are. No offense to the OP, because I've seen some insightful things from you.

Anarchy is simply the absence of government, or a ruler. I know this is hard for some people to understand. Please don't get confused with what you have seen on TeeVee, that is NOT Anarchy. Nor, is the floating definition that is spewed by the MSM Anarchy.

Anarchy is not a group of individuals running rampant, destroying property and raping and pillaging willy nilly. This is simply not true. The proclaimed "Anarchists" you see on TV are nothing of the sort. They in fact DEMOCRATIC MOBS. They don't want to be "Left alone". They don't want to be "Self governing". They don't abide by a "Non-aggression axiom". These people (such as the ones rioting in Greece) simply want MORE government. They want more handouts. More more more more.

To think that Anarchists are Tyrannical is ridiculous. It is the opposite of Tyrannical. The main problem with 'so-called conservatives' is they want freedom and liberty as long as it fits into their narrow viewpoint. If it doesn't, then watch out! They will be equally as Tyrannical as those Democratic Mobs & Liberal Socialists.

The reality is that Government has been more Tyrannical and destructive to freedom than anything else in human history. They have imprisoned, murdered, raped, beaten, stolen and controlled the human populous for ages. This has always been the case whenever government has power. They will always seek to gain more power, always. The problem is the government has a one-size-fits-all hammer and their motto is assimilate or die.

Anarchists want to be left alone. We don't want your dogma or your laws. We don't want to follow you in any way, shape or form. We as Anarchists promise not to hurt you, steal from you or do any other form of aggressive act upon you, unless it's in defense of our property or family.

I realize this might be difficult for you. It's also possible you may have to witness us living our lives freely, without interference from you. We will also come to your defense if the cause is just.

I would suggest you start fighting the true Tyrants in this world and do us all a favor and leave people that agree with many of your positions, alone. We do not want to be ruled.

[Truth Warrior]

If no one is compelled to go to a private court, then what is the importance of them being tried in absentia? It has no legal bearing on them whatsoever. The private court then becomes nothing more than a gossip club against a defendant. Even Rothbard admitted that it was a difficult situation to resolve when people are not compelled to a private court.

You may question my grasp on reality, but that still does not solve the gaping problem in your anarchical utopian justice system. You fail to understand that in order for there to be justice in a society, there has to be a universal standard of morality which is agreed upon by a people. Once that happens, then there needs to be laws made which ensure the peace and prosperity of all citizens against evildoers. There also needs to be institutions which try and punish these criminals. These are a necessity because of sinful human nature. Our Founders understood this so well, and that is why they decided to have a separation of powers so that no one human being could have all the power in society.

In anarchy, it is impossible to have a universal standard of morality agreed upon by citizens. What would compel people to even agree to have morality in the first place? In an anarchical utopia, there is no compulsion because everything is done voluntarily. Anarchy allows every person to do that which is right in his own eyes. There can be no such thing as "justice" in a society like that because justice only becomes relative to a firm or group. One firm or group may think it's okay to rape and pillage society, while another may not. Neither one has the right to assert that their conduct is more just than the other. The fact that you don't realize that is very unfortunate.

While I agree with you that in our current justice system it is possible for judges and jurors to be bought off, you have to be insanely naive to think that would not happen in an anarchical society of private courts, especially with the idea of courts existing based on competition in the market. Sure, people may no longer use the court service if they find out it is bought off, but so what? The courts aren't compulsory in nature anyway, so if a plaintiff wants to have a trial in a "stacked" court, he can do so (especially if the judges and jurors are paid off in his favor). The defendant would be tried in absentia, but I find that even appalling, due to the fact that he's being tried by a court that has been compromised by secret funds. That would be even more reason for a defendant to not use any private court. In an anarchical system of justice, it is the rule of money which determines justice, not the rule of law. And any that dare refuse shall be summarily burned at the stake, forthwith. :D

[jmlfod87]

If no one is compelled to go to a private court, then what is the importance of them being tried in absentia? It has no legal bearing on them whatsoever. The private court then becomes nothing more than a gossip club against a defendant. Even Rothbard admitted that it was a difficult situation to resolve when people are not compelled to a private court.

And if the gossip club is unjustly prosecuting and imprisoning individuals then people will take their business elsewhere. This makes for a system that is MORE just, because you have a choice as to which court you want to go to. The cour tthat is the most profitable will be the one that provides the most justice to society. People wouldn't respect a court that was imprisoning people for no reason.


You may question my grasp on reality, but that still does not solve the gaping problem in your anarchical utopian justice system. You fail to understand that in order for there to be justice in a society, there has to be a universal standard of morality which is agreed upon by a people. Once that happens, then there needs to be laws made which ensure the peace and prosperity of all citizens against evildoers. There also needs to be institutions which try and punish these criminals. These are a necessity because of sinful human nature. Our Founders understood this so well, and that is why they decided to have a separation of powers so that no one human being could have all the power in society.

And there is a univeral standard of morality that exists today? If you believe so I will again question your view of reality.

The REALITY is there can never be a universal standard of morality, just like there can never be a universal standard for beauty, or charm, or kindness.

That is why businesses should compete to provide a system of justice that meets MOST peoples standard of morality. This way, everyone gets to live under the system of justice they truly believe is most moral, and the system that is truly most righteous will be the one adopted by most citizens.


In anarchy, it is impossible to have a universal standard of morality agreed upon by citizens. What would compel people to even agree to have morality in the first place? In an anarchical utopia, there is no compulsion because everything is done voluntarily. Anarchy allows every person to do that which is right in his own eyes. There can be no such thing as "justice" in a society like that because justice only becomes relative to a firm or group. One firm or group may think it's okay to rape and pillage society, while another may not. Neither one has the right to assert that their conduct is more just than the other. The fact that you don't realize that is very unfortunate.


And who is going to pay for a system of justice that allows raping and pillaging? The fact that you don't realize only profitable enterprises flourish is very unfortunate.


While I agree with you that in our current justice system it is possible for judges and jurors to be bought off, you have to be insanely naive to think that would not happen in an anarchical society of private courts, especially with the idea of courts existing based on competition in the market. Sure, people may no longer use the court service if they find out it is bought off, but so what?


But so what? Are you serious? REALLY? So, how is this court that has no customers going to survive? You seriously need to read some economics.




The courts aren't compulsory in nature anyway, so if a plaintiff wants to have a trial in a "stacked" court, he can do so (especially if the judges and jurors are paid off in his favor). The defendant would be tried in absentia, but I find that even appalling, due to the fact that he's being tried by a court that has been compromised by secret funds. That would be even more reason for a defendant to not use any private court. In an anarchical system of justice, it is the rule of money which determines justice, not the rule of law.

And if the court is "stacked" it wont be a court for much longer when it loses its customers due to corruption.

In an anarchical system of justice money, ie the consumer, rules. This is true.

However, in your system of justice, it is not the laws that rule but arbitrary people, burceacrats, who have no incentive to do a good job and please their customers.

It is profit that drives society. When industries are socialized, and they lose their profit motivation, they quickly deteriorate. This is why he have an ever increasing level of police brutality, an ever declining amount of cases that get to see trial, an increasing number of innocent behind bars.

When the government runs the Courts no one cares if justice is being served, the judges and jurors get paid regardless. What incentive do they have to follow the "rule of law"?

[heavenlyboy34]

Again, you conveniently ignored the substance of autarchist theories of justice. I ask you again, what books have you read on this subject? You demonstrate zero understanding of it. Sadly, you've adopted the "random emotional smear" tactic so beloved by the looney left. :( I expect better of RPFers, I really do. Perhaps I have to lower my expectations.:(:(



If no one is compelled to go to a private court, then what is the importance of them being tried in absentia? It has no legal bearing on them whatsoever. The private court then becomes nothing more than a gossip club against a defendant. Even Rothbard admitted that it was a difficult situation to resolve when people are not compelled to a private court.

You may question my grasp on reality, but that still does not solve the gaping problem in your anarchical utopian justice system. You fail to understand that in order for there to be justice in a society, there has to be a universal standard of morality which is agreed upon by a people. Once that happens, then there needs to be laws made which ensure the peace and prosperity of all citizens against evildoers. There also needs to be institutions which try and punish these criminals. These are a necessity because of sinful human nature. Our Founders understood this so well, and that is why they decided to have a separation of powers so that no one human being could have all the power in society.

In anarchy, it is impossible to have a universal standard of morality agreed upon by citizens. What would compel people to even agree to have morality in the first place? In an anarchical utopia, there is no compulsion because everything is done voluntarily. Anarchy allows every person to do that which is right in his own eyes. There can be no such thing as "justice" in a society like that because justice only becomes relative to a firm or group. One firm or group may think it's okay to rape and pillage society, while another may not. Neither one has the right to assert that their conduct is more just than the other. The fact that you don't realize that is very unfortunate.

While I agree with you that in our current justice system it is possible for judges and jurors to be bought off, you have to be insanely naive to think that would not happen in an anarchical society of private courts, especially with the idea of courts existing based on competition in the market. Sure, people may no longer use the court service if they find out it is bought off, but so what? The courts aren't compulsory in nature anyway, so if a plaintiff wants to have a trial in a "stacked" court, he can do so (especially if the judges and jurors are paid off in his favor). The defendant would be tried in absentia, but I find that even appalling, due to the fact that he's being tried by a court that has been compromised by secret funds. That would be even more reason for a defendant to not use any private court. In an anarchical system of justice, it is the rule of money which determines justice, not the rule of law.

[Theocrat]

And if the gossip club is unjustly prosecuting and imprisoning individuals then people will take their business elsewhere. This makes for a system that is MORE just, because you have a choice as to which court you want to go to. The cour tthat is the most profitable will be the one that provides the most justice to society. People wouldn't respect a court that was imprisoning people for no reason.

What?! How in a voluntary, anarchical society are people prosecuted and imprisoned? Do you seriously believe the criminals, especially those who don't attend private courts, will just give themselves over to a private court (especially after cases of absentia)? That is highly unlikely, and you can be sure that if a member of a private court tries to force a private citizen (who doesn't think he's guilty, by the way) to be imprisoned, there is going to be some bloodshed on the streets. How could people not respect a court which imprisons for no reason if, by the standards of the anarchical society, there is no compulsion to imprison anyone?

Once again, justice cannot be based on personal choice. It makes no sense to say something is more just by reason that there are choices out there for one's own gratification. If that's the case, then murderers can create a private court to justify why murder is right. The same applies to rapists, thieves, arsonists, and cannibals. Justice then becomes contingent upon what a particular group favors as just.


And there is a univeral standard of morality that exists today? If you believe so I will again question your view of reality.

The REALITY is there can never be a universal standard of morality, just like there can never be a universal standard for beauty, or charm, or kindness.

That is why businesses should compete to provide a system of justice that meets MOST peoples standard of morality. This way, everyone gets to live under the system of justice they truly believe is most moral, and the system that is truly most righteous will be the one adopted by most citizens.

Morality is not based on majority. If the majority of people in society decided that raping single girls was okay, that still would not make it moral to rape. That is where your argument falls into the oblivion of relativistic destruction.

I also find it interesting that you deny there can be universal standards of any kind, but then you make a universally negative statement that there can never be any universal standards of anything. So, which is it?

Once again, morality does not find its legitimacy in market competition. To say that one can make monetary profit from deciding what morality is is actually tyranny of the wealthiest. He who has the most money will be able to create and finance the best courts and best judges to work therein. Of course, those who create such courts will not allow their own law-breaking to be tried in their own private court. After all, thieves are never without honor except around the police.


And who is going to pay for a system of justice that allows raping and pillaging? The fact that you don't realize only profitable enterprises flourish is very unfortunate.

I'll tell you who's going to pay for it. The rapists and those who pillage! Anarchy allows that to happen just by the ability to establish private courts for favoring rapists and pillagers.


But so what? Are you serious? REALLY? So, how is this court that has no customers going to survive? You seriously need to read some economics.

You broke up my sentence, so you need to go back and read it in context.


And if the court is "stacked" it wont be a court for much longer when it loses its customers due to corruption.

In an anarchical system of justice money, ie the consumer, rules. This is true.

However, in your system of justice, it is not the laws that rule but arbitrary people, burceacrats, who have no incentive to do a good job and please their customers.

It is profit that drives society. When industries are socialized, and they lose their profit motivation, they quickly deteriorate. This is why he have an ever increasing level of police brutality, an ever declining amount of cases that get to see trial, an increasing number of innocent behind bars.

When the government runs the Courts no one cares if justice is being served, the judges and jurors get paid regardless. What incentive do they have to follow the "rule of law"?

There's always an incentive for people to do what they consider to be a good job. The problem is you or I may not agree with their sentiment that they are doing a good job. Their "customers" may be satisfied with their work, and it may give the judges a good feeling to know that "justice" was served.

In order for the rule of law to work, men have to be ruled by law in their hearts. In other words, there needs to be a spiritual regeneration that precedes them enacting an office which requires the rule of law as the domain of their work. When men act contrary to this universal law, it's not the fault of the law, but of the people who violate it's principles. That's going to happen whether individuals are involved in a market-oriented society or government-driven society.

You need to realize that not everything in life is profitable by monetary gain. Missionaries are a great example of that reality. They go above and beyond to minister in other nations for no reason but to share the Gospel with those who have not heard about Jesus Christ. They don't become missionaries because they want to increase their stockholder's wealth in some capacity. There are no stocks in missionary work. It is out of pure charity and fidelity to God that these people are changing cultures, and consequently, the world. The only incentive they have is to see people's lives changed for the glory of God.

So, once again, profit is not always denominated in dollar signs. The ministry of government is not monetary profit, but profit of human dignity and societal civility by the appropriation of law and order against evildoers. If you can step out of a purely economic paradigm, this would be easier to understand. That is where people like Rothbard fail. He only sees things in terms of economic reality. True reality is not layered in only economics. It is multi-layered, consisting of moral decency, civil liberties, logical rationality, scientific inquiry, romantic beauty, human ingenuity and creativity, historical study, etc.

[jmlfod87]

What?! How in a voluntary, anarchical society are people prosecuted and imprisoned? Do you seriously believe the criminals, especially those who don't attend private courts, will just give themselves over to a private court (especially after cases of absentia)? That is highly unlikely, and you can be sure that if a member of a private court tries to force a private citizen (who doesn't think he's guilty, by the way) to be imprisoned, there is going to be some bloodshed on the streets. How could people not respect a court which imprisons for no reason if, by the standards of the anarchical society, there is no compulsion to imprison anyone?


What are you talking about? When the police today apprehend a suspected criminal is there always bloodshed on the streets? Courts are compulsed to imprison people who are guilty or unjust acts, for if they fail to do so, people will seek out courts that will bring people to justice.


Once again, justice cannot be based on personal choice. It makes no sense to say something is more just by reason that there are choices out there for one's own gratification. If that's the case, then murderers can create a private court to justify why murder is right. The same applies to rapists, thieves, arsonists, and cannibals. Justice then becomes contingent upon what a particular group favors as just.


Wow, this conversation is hitting intellectual benchmarks. Rapists and murderes are free to create their own courts for crimes they commit against themselves, yes. But if one of the rapists or murderers decides to commit a crime against someone who does not wish to accept their court (or has a family member or friend or associate whom does not wish to accept that court) then that court will not be used to try the case.

Justice HAS TO be based on PERSONAL CHOICE. Thats what justice is!!! Not everyone believes Angelina Jolie is beautiful, and not everyone believes your laws, and the way you enforce them, is JUST. Why is this so hard for you to understand?




Morality is not based on majority. If the majority of people in society decided that raping single girls was okay, that still would not make it moral to rape. That is where your argument falls into the oblivion of relativistic destruction.

LOL. Morality is not based on majority? Guess what, YOUR LAWS ARE. We live in a democracy (ie republic) and YOU VOTE for the legislatores who write your laws. It is in YOUR system of justice that raping single girls may turn out to be acceptable. It is in YOUR system of justice that the majority rules. In MY system of justice the MOST JUST rule, and the MOST JUST are determined by profit, which isn't the same as majority, those that produce more for society (the smartest individuals) have the most say, as it should be.


I also find it interesting that you deny there can be universal standards of any kind, but then you make a universally negative statement that there can never be any universal standards of anything. So, which is it?


LOL again, your mincing words. I said there cannot be universal standards for attributes such as justice, beauty, charm, etc. People have an opinion as to what is just, beautiful, and charming, but such things can never be objectively proved. You do know what an opinion is right? You do know what the words subjective and objective are, right? You cannot have a universal standard for something no one agrees on.



Once again, morality does not find its legitimacy in market competition. To say that one can make monetary profit from deciding what morality is is actually tyranny of the wealthiest. He who has the most money will be able to create and finance the best courts and best judges to work therein. Of course, those who create such courts will not allow their own law-breaking to be tried in their own private court. After all, thieves are never without honor except around the police.


Again, corrupt courts wont last long, no matter how well financed. The fact that you can't understand this simple concept leaves me flabergasted. If a judge that works for a private court is not found guilty of a crime many believe he committed the court will lose its credibility and people WILL GO ELSEWHERE.

It is YOUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE that allows judges and well-connected people to get off scot free. It is YOUR MONOPOLY ON FORCE that provides the FORCE BEARERS the most leeway/




I'll tell you who's going to pay for it. The rapists and those who pillage! Anarchy allows that to happen just by the ability to establish private courts for favoring rapists and pillagers.


Under this court the only people that can be raped are the rapists and pillagers themselves. If you rape someone who does not agree to go to a court run by rapists and pillagers, then the rapists will be imprisoned by the private court.

THE VICTIM(of their family) CHOOSES THE COURT, it is only when the suspect chooses a different court that it may go to a third court, and only if the court the suspect goes to is a respectable one.





There's always an incentive for people to do what they consider to be a good job. The problem is you or I may not agree with their sentiment that they are doing a good job. Their "customers" may be satisfied with their work, and it may give the judges a good feeling to know that "justice" was served.


Uh, no there isn't always an incentive for people to do a good job. Many people go to work every day and choose not to do a good job, knowing they aren't doing one. Profit drives labor. The fact that you fail to understand this speaks volumes against you.



In order for the rule of law to work, men have to be ruled by law in their hearts. In other words, there needs to be a spiritual regeneration that precedes them enacting an office which requires the rule of law as the domain of their work. When men act contrary to this universal law, it's not the fault of the law, but of the people who violate it's principles. That's going to happen whether individuals are involved in a market-oriented society or government-driven society.


Lala land.


You need to realize that not everything in life is profitable by monetary gain. Missionaries are a great example of that reality. They go above and beyond to minister in other nations for no reason but to share the Gospel with those who have not heard about Jesus Christ. They don't become missionaries because they want to increase their stockholder's wealth in some capacity. There are no stocks in missionary work. It is out of pure charity and fidelity to God that these people are changing cultures, and consequently, the world. The only incentive they have is to see people's lives changed for the glory of God.

So, once again, profit is not always denominated in dollar signs. The ministry of government is not monetary profit, but profit of human dignity and societal civility by the appropriation of law and order against evildoers. If you can step out of a purely economic paradigm, this would be easier to understand. That is where people like Rothbard fail. He only sees things in terms of economic reality. True reality is not layered in only economics. It is multi-layered, consisting of moral decency, civil liberties, logical rationality, scientific inquiry, romantic beauty, human ingenuity and creativity, historical study, etc.


First point: You have clearly never read Rothbard. Rothbard BASHES economic determinism. He is a natural law ideologue. He believes in the non-aggression axiom which gives everyone the right to not have aggression committed against them. He argues most passionatelty from this standpoint.

I am arguing to you from an economic determinist approach because natural law is not very persuasive in this day and age. Most people are utilitarians and dont care about natural rights, only the common good. Thus, I am arguing in an economic paradigm in order to show how anarcho-capitalism benefits the common good.

Second point: I never said that their arent individuals whom aren't motivated by profit. What I have been saying is that the most efficient and productive individuals in society ARE those who demand compensation for their work. There is no argument that missionaries do charitable work all over the world, but their work pales in comparison to the market, which provides an exponentially higher amount of goods and services to society. Chairty will never surpass the market in deeds to society, because there are few charitable people, and charity is less efficient.

I think you are too wrapped in religious dogma to actually comprehend reality. People are not, and never will be, as virtuous as you think. Most people desire something in return for their services, and most will work even harder because of it. You still have much to learn.

[Theocrat]

Again, you conveniently ignored the substance of autarchist theories of justice. I ask you again, what books have you read on this subject? You demonstrate zero understanding of it. Sadly, you've adopted the "random emotional smear" tactic so beloved by the looney left. :( I expect better of RPFers, I really do. Perhaps I have to lower my expectations.:(:(

Can you direct me to some "autarchist" theories of justice?

[Xenophage]

The definition of "justice" is dependent upon your morality. If objective morality exists, and everyone here claims to understand correct morality by invoking the NAP (however they come to it is irrelevant), then objective justice also exists.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice)

[jmlfod87]

The definition of "justice" is dependent upon your morality. If objective morality exists, and everyone here claims to understand correct morality by invoking the NAP (however they come to it is irrelevant), then objective justice also exists.


LOL, and everyone agrees with us?

[The_Orlonater]

Which is why our Founders designed the Constitution. Unfortunately, we don't hold our end up, which is why we're in this mess.

The founders weren't gods.

[heavenlyboy34]

Can you direct me to some "autarchist" theories of justice?

There have been entire lists of books on the subject given to you in several threads. Quit being lazy and go read. Start with "The Market For Liberty". :cool: :)

[The_Orlonater]

What is your source for those definitions?

The original anarchists were socialists and anti-private property philosophers. That is the reason Rothbard coined the term, "anarcho-capitalist." Essentially, all anarchy is the same thing(a statless society where community groups can reopen, evryone can be an individual, etc.). It's the whole system of thought that Conza wants to get away from.