PDA

View Full Version : The Rule Of Law Is A Myth




PierzStyx
10-05-2017, 03:37 PM
This is the start of a longer article by Dr. John Hasnas, a doctor of economics and law at Georgetown University as well as a Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute. It is totally work reading in toto. I think his conclusion is inescapable in the end: The rule of law is a myth that is perpetuated by those in power in order to secure their positions and the obedience of those not in power.


In his novel 1984, George Orwell created a nightmare vision of the future in which an all-powerful Party exerts totalitarian control over society by forcing the citizens to master the technique of "doublethink," which requires them "to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel[] out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them." (3) Orwell's doublethink is usually regarded as a wonderful literary device, but, of course, one with no referent in reality since it is obviously impossible to believe both halves of a contradiction. In my opinion, this assessment is quite mistaken. Not only is it possible for people to believe both halves of a contradiction, it is something they do every day with no apparent difficulty.

Consider, for example, people's beliefs about the legal system. They are obviously aware that the law is inherently political. The common complaint that members of Congress are corrupt, or are legislating for their own political benefit or for that of special interest groups demonstrates that citizens understand that the laws under which they live are a product of political forces rather than the embodiment of the ideal of justice. Further, as evidenced by the political battles fought over the recent nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, the public obviously believes that the ideology of the people who serve as judges influences the way the law is interpreted.

This, however, in no way prevents people from simultaneously regarding the law as a body of definite, politically neutral rules amenable to an impartial application which all citizens have a moral obligation to obey. Thus, they seem both surprised and dismayed to learn that the Clean Air Act might have been written, not to produce the cleanest air possible, but to favor the economic interests of the miners of dirty-burning West Virginia coal (West Virginia coincidentally being the home of Robert Byrd, who was then chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee) over those of the miners of cleaner-burning western coal. (4) And, when the Supreme Court hands down a controversial ruling on a subject such as abortion, civil rights, or capital punishment, then, like Louis in Casablanca, the public is shocked, shocked to find that the Court may have let political considerations influence its decision. The frequent condemnation of the judiciary for "undemocratic judicial activism" or "unprincipled social engineering" is merely a reflection of the public's belief that the law consists of a set of definite and consistent "neutral principles" (5) which the judge is obligated to apply in an objective manner, free from the influence of his or her personal political and moral beliefs.

I believe that, much as Orwell suggested, it is the public's ability to engage in this type of doublethink, to be aware that the law is inherently political in character and yet believe it to be an objective embodiment of justice, that accounts for the amazing degree to which the federal government is able to exert its control over a supposedly free people. I would argue that this ability to maintain the belief that the law is a body of consistent, politically neutral rules that can be objectively applied by judges in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, goes a long way toward explaining citizens' acquiescence in the steady erosion of their fundamental freedoms. To show that this is, in fact, the case, I would like to direct your attention to the fiction which resides at the heart of this incongruity and allows the public to engage in the requisite doublethink without cognitive discomfort: the myth of the rule of law.

I refer to the myth of the rule of law because, to the extent this phrase suggests a society in which all are governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges, there is no such thing. As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. Its power derives from its great emotive appeal. The rule of law suggests an absence of arbitrariness, an absence of the worst abuses of tyranny. The image presented by the slogan "America is a government of laws and not people" is one of fair and impartial rule rather than subjugation to human whim. This is an image that can command both the allegiance and affection of the citizenry. After all, who wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law if the only alternative were arbitrary rule? But this image is also the source of the myth's danger. For if citizens really believe that they are being governed by fair and impartial rules and that the only alternative is subjection to personal rule, they will be much more likely to support the state as it progressively curtails their freedom.

In this Article, I will argue that this is a false dichotomy. Specifically, I intend to establish three points: 1) there is no such thing as a government of law and not people, 2) the belief that there is serves to maintain public support for society's power structure, and 3) the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law.

For the rest: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

r3volution 3.0
10-05-2017, 04:45 PM
Disclaimer: I haven't read the article yet

The rule of law is a myth, but not one "perpetuated by those in power in order to secure their positions and the obedience of those not in power," or, at least, if it is that, it doesn't really matter. The rule of law is a myth because "law" is, if anything, words written on paper. It can't do anything. It can't hold anyone to account for anything. The "rule of law" is always the rule of some person or persons. The upshot of this is that, if you want those on power to behave in a certain way, you must not rely on written words which no one but they themselves will be in a position to interpret and apply. The question then arises: how are those in positions of power to be held to account? Well, by definition, those in positions of power cannot be held to account by those not in positions of power. If someone can order the sovereign to act differently, then he is the sovereign (and by whom is he to be held account: ad infinitum). Ultimately, the behavior of those in power is a function of internal motivation, not external pressure. If you want them to behave in a certain way, you must create a political structure which incentivizes (not compels) them to do so. I'll end short of naming what that political structure is, since I don't want to derail Pierz's thread, but suffice it to say it isn't anarcho-capitalism.

osan
10-05-2017, 06:29 PM
This, however, in no way prevents people from simultaneously regarding the law as a body of definite, politically neutral rules amenable to an impartial application which all citizens have a moral obligation to obey.

I am afraid it is far worse than this. They know that law is mostly inane, politically biased, endlessly subject to corrupted application, and yet still they believe in the obligation to obey. This is the very definition of "just about hopeless".

r3volution 3.0
10-05-2017, 06:54 PM
I am afraid it is far worse than this. They know that law is mostly inane, politically biased, endlessly subject to corrupted application, and yet still they believe in the obligation to obey. This is the very definition of "just about hopeless".

Obedience has less to do with belief than with the gun.

Last time someone seriously tried to defy this state, and assert his independence, this state killed half a million people in rebuttal.

The gun, and then time, makes for cooperation: deterrence.

Beliefs are mostly rationalizations for the existing power structure, both on the side of the rulers and on the side of the ruled.

The gun is primary.

...I hate to cite Mao as an authority, but he was correct in that respect.

HVACTech
10-05-2017, 08:54 PM
seriously guys?
the "Rule of Law" is what separates a Democracy from a Republic.
in a Democracy, the people can vote on any damn thing they wish.
if you place a few restrictions on what they can vote on. it is a Republic.

only a dimwit would think that the "Rule of Law" means that there are Laws... and they Rule.

seems this subject is too complicated for the folks around these parts.

after all. what was our founders definition of the "Rule of Law"?

TheTexan
10-05-2017, 09:34 PM
In his novel 1984, George Orwell created a nightmare vision of the future

That's just like, your opinion, man

nobody's_hero
10-06-2017, 06:00 AM
3.0 probably came closest to the truth. Words on paper don't mean anything unless people actually enforce it. In civic terms, yes government has a monopoly on force. But, a more timid example would be the Ron Paul forum rules and guidelines. They don't mean squat unless a moderator or administrator chooses to enforce them. As soon as they start letting things slide, the forum becomes a free-for-all and whoever can spam the most garbage or call the most names is declared the winner. Anarchy ensues, for better but usually for worse, as you end up with 100-page threads with 2 or 3 people going at it and misinterpreting or misrepresenting everything that is said.

Superfluous Man
10-06-2017, 08:44 AM
The whole thing is great.

Here's a part I really liked in section XIII:

I am aware that this explanation probably appears as initially unconvincing as was my earlier contention that the law is inherently political. Even if you found my Monosizea parable entertaining, it is likely that you regard it as irrelevant. You probably believe that the analogy fails because shoes are qualitatively different from legal services. After all, law is a public good which, unlike shoes, really is crucial to public welfare. It is easy to see how the free market can adequately supply the public with shoes. But how can it possibly provide the order-generating and maintaining processes necessary for the peaceful coexistence of human beings in society? What would a free market in legal services be like?

I am always tempted to give the honest and accurate response to this challenge, which is that to ask the question is to miss the point. If human beings had the wisdom and knowledge-generating capacity to be able to describe how a free market would work, that would be the strongest possible argument for central planning. One advocates a free market not because of some moral imprimatur written across the heavens, but because it is impossible for human beings to amass the knowledge of local conditions and the predictive capacity necessary to effectively organize economic relationships among millions of individuals. It is possible to describe what a free market in shoes would be like because we have one. But such a description is merely an observation of the current state of a functioning market, not a projection of how human beings would organize themselves to supply a currently non-marketed good. To demand that an advocate of free market law (or Socrates of Monosizea, for that matter) describe in advance how markets would supply legal services (or shoes) is to issue an impossible challenge. Further, for an advocate of free market law (or Socrates) to even accept this challenge would be to engage in self-defeating activity since the more successfully he or she could describe how the law (or shoe) market would function, the more he or she would prove that it could be run by state planners. Free markets supply human wants better than state monopolies precisely because they allow an unlimited number of suppliers to attempt to do so. By patronizing those who most effectively meet their particular needs and causing those who do not to fail, consumers determine the optimal method of supply. If it were possible to specify in advance what the outcome of this process of selection would be, there would be no need for the process itself.

Although I am tempted to give this response, I never do. This is because, although true, it never persuades. Instead, it is usually interpreted as an appeal for blind faith in the free market, and the failure to provide a specific explanation as to how such a market would provide legal services is interpreted as proof that it cannot. Therefore, despite the self-defeating nature of the attempt, I usually do try to suggest how a free market in law might work.

So, what would a free market in legal services be like? As Sherlock Holmes would regularly say to the good doctor, "You see, Watson, but you do not observe." Examples of non-state law are all around us. Consider labor-management collective bargaining agreements. In addition to setting wage rates, such agreements typically determine both the work rules the parties must abide by and the grievance procedures they must follow to resolve disputes. In essence, such contracts create the substantive law of the workplace as well as the workplace judiciary. A similar situation exists with regard to homeowner agreements, which create both the rules and dispute settlement procedures within a condominium or housing development, i.e., the law and judicial procedure of the residential community. Perhaps a better example is supplied by universities. These institutions create their own codes of conduct for both students and faculty that cover everything from academic dishonesty to what constitutes acceptable speech and dating behavior. In addition, they not only devise their own elaborate judicial procedures to deal with violations of these codes, but typically supply their own campus police forces as well. A final example may be supplied by the many commercial enterprises that voluntarily opt out of the state judicial system by writing clauses in their contracts that require disputes to be settled through binding arbitration or mediation rather than through a lawsuit. In this vein, the variegated "legal" procedures that have recently been assigned the sobriquet of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) do a good job of suggesting what a free market in legal service might be like. (35)

Of course, it is not merely that we fail to observe what is presently all around us. We also act as though we have no knowledge of our own cultural or legal history. Consider, for example, the situation of African-American communities in the segregated South or the immigrant communities in New York in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Because of prejudice, poverty and the language barrier, these groups were essentially cut off from the state legal system. And yet, rather than disintegrate into chaotic disorder, they were able to privately supply themselves with the rules of behavior and dispute-settlement procedures necessary to maintain peaceful, stable, and highly structured communities. Furthermore, virtually none of the law that orders our interpersonal relationships was produced by the intentional actions of central governments. Our commercial law arose almost entirely from the Law Merchant, a non-governmental set of rules and procedures developed by merchants to quickly and peacefully resolve disputes and facilitate commercial relations. Property, tort, and criminal law are all the products of common law processes by which rules of behavior evolve out of and are informed by the particular circumstances of actual human controversies. In fact, a careful study of Anglo-American legal history will demonstrate that almost all of the law which facilitates peaceful human interaction arose in this way. On the other hand, the source of the law which produces oppression and social division is almost always the state. Measures that impose religious or racial intolerance, economic exploitation, one group's idea of "fairness," or another's of "community" or "family" values virtually always originate in legislation, the law consciously made by the central government. If the purpose of the law really is to bring order to human existence, then it is fair to say that the law actually made by the state is precisely the law that does not work.

HVACTech
10-06-2017, 08:47 PM
Obedience has less to do with belief than with the gun.

Last time someone seriously tried to defy this state, and assert his independence, this state killed half a million people in rebuttal.

The gun, and then time, makes for cooperation: deterrence.

Beliefs are mostly rationalizations for the existing power structure, both on the side of the rulers and on the side of the ruled.

The gun is primary.

...I hate to cite Mao as an authority, but he was correct in that respect.

guns were a relatively new invention in 1787.
the inherent problems with any form of mass social organization. were very well understood by our founders.
the Republic was invented by the Romans. (they learned from the Greeks)
it is Latin.
"res-publica" the public thing.
go ahead. google it.

our founders understood that the masses will organize. and overwhelm small peaceful places.
and that my friend.
is why they chose a Republican form of goonerment.
to limit the masses from doing so.
to suggest that it is possible, to stop the masses from self organizing is foolish.
and that was well known prior to the invention by Mr Colt. ;)

r3volution 3.0
10-06-2017, 09:00 PM
guns were a relatively new invention in 1787.
the inherent problems with any form of mass social organization. were very well understood by our founders.
the Republic was invented by the Romans. (they learned from the Greeks)
it is Latin.
"res-publica" the public thing.
go ahead. google it.

our founders understood that the masses will organize. and overwhelm small peaceful places.
and that my friend.
is why they chose a Republican form of goonerment.
to limit the masses from doing so.
to suggest that it is possible, to stop the masses from self organizing is foolish.
and that was well known prior to the invention by Mr Colt. ;)

The republic is a joke (look at what it does).

The founders were well intended, good (classical) liberals, but naive.

Muskets weren't new in 1787 and, even if they were, people can kill one another with axes, swords, spears, etc.

Nothing new under the sun

ChristianAnarchist
10-06-2017, 09:10 PM
This is the start of a longer article by Dr. John Hasnas, a doctor of economics and law at Georgetown University as well as a Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute. It is totally work reading in toto. I think his conclusion is inescapable in the end: The rule of law is a myth that is perpetuated by those in power in order to secure their positions and the obedience of those not in power.

Yes indeed. This is an argument I've made over the years when I feel someone is close enough to the truth to listen to it. We do now and always have lived in "anarchy". The sheeple are tricked into thinking there is something called "goonerment" so they will not resist but those at the top know. Those at the top don't follow "laws" for a reason... They know there's no "authority" for them. It's all a trick and they are hiding behind the curtains pulling the levers to make smoke and fire to scare sheeple into saluting the flag and singing the magic song.

It's anarchy now and it's always been anarchy. It only requires that the sheeple pull the wool out of their eyes to see that NO ONE has more "authority" than anyone else and the whole house of cards falls in an instant. All oppression would vanish like a flash of smoke from the hand of a magician and everyone would see that they are truly FREE. They only need to exercise their liberty to have it...

HVACTech
10-07-2017, 08:21 PM
The republic is a joke (look at what it does).

The founders were well intended, good (classical) liberals, but naive.

Muskets weren't new in 1787 and, even if they were, people can kill one another with axes, swords, spears, etc.

Nothing new under the sun

China is a republic. Russia is also a Republic.
to blow them off.. is to do so...
at your own peril.

does thou art.. pretend to know more about a what a "Republic" is... or is not...

than Russia or China?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSfNvTVEALw

HVACTech
10-07-2017, 08:30 PM
Yes indeed. This is an argument I've made over the years when I feel someone is close enough to the truth to listen to it. We do now and always have lived in "anarchy". The sheeple are tricked into thinking there is something called "goonerment" so they will not resist but those at the top know. Those at the top don't follow "laws" for a reason... They know there's no "authority" for them. It's all a trick and they are hiding behind the curtains pulling the levers to make smoke and fire to scare sheeple into saluting the flag and singing the magic song.

It's anarchy now and it's always been anarchy. It only requires that the sheeple pull the wool out of their eyes to see that NO ONE has more "authority" than anyone else and the whole house of cards falls in an instant. All oppression would vanish like a flash of smoke from the hand of a magician and everyone would see that they are truly FREE. They only need to exercise their liberty to have it...

respectfully submitted Sir.

is it possible... to be a "proper" Anarchist.

if you work for someone else?

or,

does that definition, require self-employment? :confused:

ChristianAnarchist
10-07-2017, 09:46 PM
respectfully submitted Sir.

is it possible... to be a "proper" Anarchist.

if you work for someone else?

or,

does that definition, require self-employment? :confused:

Of course an anarchist can work for someone else. You can do any kind of contract, written or verbal, that you like. I can work for your plumbing business for $24 per hour and our agreement will spell out what you expect me to do. If I fail to do it you can tell me to take a hike and if you ask me to do things that we did not agree to I can tell you to take a hike. That's personal contract between two people and both can be anarchists (or not)...

HVACTech
10-08-2017, 08:26 PM
Of course an anarchist can work for someone else. You can do any kind of contract, written or verbal, that you like. I can work for your plumbing business for $24 per hour and our agreement will spell out what you expect me to do. If I fail to do it you can tell me to take a hike and if you ask me to do things that we did not agree to I can tell you to take a hike. That's personal contract between two people and both can be anarchists (or not)...

what you have described sir. is simply the free market at work.

around here... we have master Anarchists.
those who can describe to the proper degree. perfect Anarchy at it's finest.

I work for myself. and my customers call me because they want to.
and that makes me.
the ultimate Anarchist. :)

ChristianAnarchist
10-08-2017, 08:34 PM
what you have described sir. is simply the free market at work.

around here... we have master Anarchists.
those who can describe to the proper degree. perfect Anarchy at it's finest.

I work for myself. and my customers call me because they want to.
and that makes me.
the ultimate Anarchist. :)

Yes indeed. Free markets are "anarchy" at work (no rulers). Everyone has a say in all contracts entered into and no one can force another into contract...

otherone
10-08-2017, 08:42 PM
I work for myself. and my customers call me because they want to.
and that makes me.
the ultimate Anarchist. :)

Good for you!
Unlicensed, unregistered, and tax scofflaw too!

HVACTech
10-09-2017, 09:55 PM
Good for you!
Unlicensed, unregistered, and tax scofflaw too!

negative sir.
I am both licensed and insured.
and I dont have a problem with that.

those are both necessary and proper.
considering what my company does for a living.

my customers know what they are paying me for.
and I get it done.
peace of mind..
is why they do not fuck with me over my prices. :toady:

pcosmar
10-09-2017, 10:23 PM
after all. what was our founders definition of the "Rule of Law"?

Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Firestarter
10-11-2017, 09:40 AM
Our legal system is designed to protect the big criminals...
“Justice” and our legal system are completely opposed to each other, see chapter 19 and 57 from the Tao Te Ching: http://www.austincc.edu/adechene/taoteching.pdf


19
Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.
If these three aren't enough,
just stay at the CENTER of the circle
and let all things take their course.


57
If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.

The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.


Most people, who hear of the teachings of Lao Tzu, think it’s something of a joke...

PierzStyx
10-11-2017, 12:02 PM
Obedience has less to do with belief than with the gun.

Last time someone seriously tried to defy this state, and assert his independence, this state killed half a million people in rebuttal.

The gun, and then time, makes for cooperation: deterrence.

Beliefs are mostly rationalizations for the existing power structure, both on the side of the rulers and on the side of the ruled.

The gun is primary.

...I hate to cite Mao as an authority, but he was correct in that respect.

Except the whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to brainwash the masses so he wouldn't need the gun.

Guns ultimately fail. You murder enough people long enough and they eventually revolt. Look at the USSR for example.

In order to endure you need people to believe you are right. People will endure anything if they believe it. Make them think they matter? And they'll follow you into Hell itself.

PierzStyx
10-11-2017, 12:13 PM
Our legal system is designed to protect the big criminals...
“Justice” and our legal system are completely opposed to each other, see chapter 19 and 57 from the Tao Te Ching: http://www.austincc.edu/adechene/taoteching.pdf




Most people, who hear of the teachings of Lao Tzu, think it’s something of a joke...

Anytime people start trying to argue that liberty is a "European" invention, I like to whip out Lao Tzu and show them that China had libertarians and anarchists 2,000 years before John Locke could scratch his own arse.


As it acts in the world, the Tao
is like the bending of a bow.
The top is bent downward;
the bottom is bent up.
It adjusts excess and deficiency
so that there is perfect balance.
It takes from what is too much
and give to what isn't enough.

Those who try to control,
who use force to protect their power,
go against the direction of the Tao.
They take from those who don't have enough
and give to those who have far too much.

The Master can keep giving
because there is no end to her wealth.
She acts without expectation,
succeeds without taking credit,
and doesn't think that she is better
than anyone else.

Exchange Tao above for "The Market" and you have a man who understands capitalism -with how it redistributes wealth, not just money, balancing what people want and need all without the necessity of violence or force, aka regulation, of any kind- 2,000 years before Adam Smith even penned the words "Invisible Hand."

Sonny Tufts
10-11-2017, 01:08 PM
Free markets are "anarchy" at work (no rulers). Everyone has a say in all contracts entered into and no one can force another into contract...

Free markets are unworkable unless there is a process by which contracts can be interpreted and enforced and that will bind both parties. You also need a process to determine whether the contract is valid in the first place -- e.g., was one party induced to enter the contract as the result of fraudulent representations by the other, or did one party have the mental capacity to contract?

Sure, the contract might recite that any dispute will be resolved by an independent arbitrator, but if one party alleges fraud then the entire contract (including the arbitration clause) is subject to being deemed invalid. In addition, who's going to force the losing party to abide by the arbitrator's decision?

And I don't see how free markets would last without a process to resolve what are generally considered as tortious or criminal acts, where there's obviously no advance agreement to let an arbitrator determine the issue.

HVACTech
10-11-2017, 10:11 PM
Second Amendment to the Constitution.

it is the only one that we have left. :(

I suspect.. that AF and I are in agreement on this.

fisharmor
10-11-2017, 10:39 PM
We do not have rule of law and frankly never have here.
All statutory law systems are rule BY law, which is not the same thing.
All stateless law systems have been common law systems that are not necessarily even codified.
Yet it is pretty clear that they did a better job at instituting rule of law, because there were no rulers to look to for justice, and as there was still a market for justice, the market provided a solution.

HVACTech
10-11-2017, 10:40 PM
Yes indeed. Free markets are "anarchy" at work (no rulers). Everyone has a say in all contracts entered into and no one can force another into contract...

I do not believe in or have "contracts" with anybody.

I am however. working on a TOS. (terms of service agreement)
they can either take my terms of service. or they can kiss my ass.

does that count? :confused:

HVACTech
10-11-2017, 10:52 PM
We do not have rule of law and frankly never have here.
All statutory law systems are rule BY law, which is not the same thing.
All stateless law systems have been common law systems that are not necessarily even codified.
Yet it is pretty clear that they did a better job at instituting rule of law, because there were no rulers to look to for justice, and as there was still a market for justice, the market provided a solution.

that was REALLY cute dude.. did you imagine that all by yourself?
and if I might ask himself...
can thou art describe.. a "stateless law system"

or have I confused herself?
and she cannot "codify" such a thing as this?

ChristianAnarchist
10-12-2017, 06:21 AM
I do not believe in or have "contracts" with anybody.

I am however. working on a TOS. (terms of service agreement)
they can either take my terms of service. or they can kiss my ass.

does that count? :confused:

Yes, that counts. Any agreement between people verbal or written is "contract". If the kid next door asks if I want my lawn mowed for $15 and I say "yes", that's a contract. It's not a very specific contract because there is only one "clause", but it's a contract. How in "anarchy" do we enforce contract? The same way you do with goonerment. You hire people with guns to settle your dispute. Oh you say, but that is such a crude method!!! Um.... that's exactly what we have today. If contract is violated you call the goons...

fisharmor
10-12-2017, 08:32 AM
that was REALLY cute dude.. did you imagine that all by yourself?
and if I might ask himself...
can thou art describe.. a "stateless law system"

or have I confused herself?
and she cannot "codify" such a thing as this?

Dude, I really do think you need to stop huffing PVC glue.
We've been over this, and if you don't remember it, that's your problem.
I'm pretty sure we've been over all of the stuff you're pretending not to know multiple times now. Which means you are either a troll or mentally ill.

HVACTech
10-12-2017, 07:25 PM
Dude, I really do think you need to stop huffing PVC glue.
We've been over this, and if you don't remember it, that's your problem.
I'm pretty sure we've been over all of the stuff you're pretending not to know multiple times now. Which means you are either a troll or mentally ill.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I can define what a "stateless Law System" is dude.
it is called fucking Nature.
and we have been over this before.

Nature has Laws you know.
and they do not need to be "stated"

your turn. :)

HVACTech
10-12-2017, 07:41 PM
Yes, that counts. Any agreement between people verbal or written is "contract". If the kid next door asks if I want my lawn mowed for $15 and I say "yes", that's a contract. It's not a very specific contract because there is only one "clause", but it's a contract. How in "anarchy" do we enforce contract? The same way you do with goonerment. You hire people with guns to settle your dispute. Oh you say, but that is such a crude method!!! Um.... that's exactly what we have today. If contract is violated you call the goons...

interesting.
it seems to me... like it is very difficult to describe EXACTLY where Anarchy begins and ends...
if I offer a service to the peeps.. and they like it and use it...
that is a "contract"?
and we are now in violation.. of the vague rules of Anarchy? :confused:

ChristianAnarchist
10-13-2017, 10:52 AM
interesting.
it seems to me... like it is very difficult to describe EXACTLY where Anarchy begins and ends...
if I offer a service to the peeps.. and they like it and use it...
that is a "contract"?
and we are now in violation.. of the vague rules of Anarchy? :confused:

The "rules" are quite simple. NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else. Is that so hard to imagine?? Do you enjoy having people who CLAIM to have authority over you (but they really don't)? And when do you tell those who make this claim to foulk off??

Sonny Tufts
10-13-2017, 01:40 PM
The "rules" are quite simple. NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else.

In other words, might makes right.

PierzStyx
10-13-2017, 03:50 PM
In other words, might makes right.

You should perhaps quote him in the entirety so as to not miss his point, that no one can "claim" to have authority over you.


But the State is the absolute definition of might makes right. That is what the "law" is all about. If you oppose teh idea of might makes right then you're halfway to being an anarchist.

ChristianAnarchist
10-13-2017, 05:40 PM
You should perhaps quote him in the entirety so as to not miss his point, that no one can "claim" to have authority over you.


But the State is the absolute definition of might makes right. That is what the "law" is all about. If you oppose teh idea of might makes right then you're halfway to being an anarchist.

That's an excellent answer...

HVACTech
10-13-2017, 06:59 PM
The "rules" are quite simple. NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else. Is that so hard to imagine?? Do you enjoy having people who CLAIM to have authority over you (but they really don't)? And when do you tell those who make this claim to foulk off??

NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else.
I submit Sir. that. that is NOT true and you know it. are you not an "authority" on anything?
I am an "authority" on something. HVAC/R.
and I have proven this point countless times right here on RPF's.

connotative and denotative meanings... the former is subjective.
the latter is not.

when the people cannot define what their principles are. they have none.
and make decisions based on emotions.

what are the principles of Anarchy?
or is that mere concept.. antithetic to the cause of Anarchy? :confused:

Anti Federalist
10-13-2017, 07:34 PM
I am an "authority" on something. HVAC/R.
and I have proven this point countless times right here on RPF's.

Except not knowing that Clarence Birdseye invented retail consumer frozen foods in the 1920s and not the 1950s.

:p

HVACTech
10-13-2017, 07:52 PM
Except not knowing that Clarence Birdseye invented retail consumer frozen foods in the 1920s and not the 1950s.

:p

you are a VERY desperate man. what I wrote was. that there was no frozen food section ANYWHERE until the 1950'S.
enjoy your 15 min of fame.

YOU claim to be both a pilot and a boat captain...
and yet when I asked you what cavitation was?
you had to look the word up.

Danke understood the meaning of this word. you did not.

Anti Federalist
10-13-2017, 08:13 PM
you are a VERY desperate man. what I wrote was. that there was no frozen food section ANYWHERE until the 1950'S.

And you are wrong.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/cf/7d/fa/cf7dfafdc288db0dc5b074914437d75f--vintage-food-vintage-retro.jpg

Frozen food section, grocery store, Washington DC 1935

I'm not desperate, I just enjoy tweaking people who have so much pride that they cannot admit when they are wrong and made a mistake.

ChristianAnarchist
10-13-2017, 09:18 PM
NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else.
I submit Sir. that. that is NOT true and you know it. are you not an "authority" on anything?
I am an "authority" on something. HVAC/R.
and I have proven this point countless times right here on RPF's.

connotative and denotative meanings... the former is subjective.
the latter is not.

when the people cannot define what their principles are. they have none.
and make decisions based on emotions.

what are the principles of Anarchy?
or is that mere concept.. antithetic to the cause of Anarchy? :confused:

You're kidding right?? You don't know the difference between "having authority over" someone and being "an authority on" something???

Are you on the same planet???

And the "rules" have already been explained above. NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY OVER ANYONE ELSE!!!

HVACTech
10-14-2017, 08:08 PM
You're kidding right?? You don't know the difference between "having authority over" someone and being "an authority on" something???

Are you on the same planet???

And the "rules" have already been explained above. NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY OVER ANYONE ELSE!!!

the tribe has ruled...
I will hang my head in shame and promise not to disgrace the noble halls of ronpaulforums Anarchy.... ever again.

Ron Paul was WRONG about the demise of our financial system.
he played me for a fool. and for a time...
he fooled me.

I was WRONG to consider him a Min-Archist. he was a hard core Anarchist all along.
I have some pretty cool memorabilia from 07-08.. that I will attempt to give away before I trash it.

I was already waking up when Ron Paul strode in.
there was already a Revolution going on.

and in 2017. he is nothing more than a mere distraction from the truth.
and that, is hard won knowledge.

this place is nothing more than a circle jerk for hard core Anarchists.
and the good Dr is proud.
please carry on.

HVACTech. over and out. :)

lilymc
10-14-2017, 08:11 PM
this place is nothing more than a circle jerk for hard core Anarchists.
and the good Dr is proud.
please carry on.



But there are only 3 here! lol

A Son of Liberty
10-15-2017, 06:50 AM
HVACTech. over and out. :)

https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-25-2014/fWx327.gif

ChristianAnarchist
10-15-2017, 08:24 AM
But there are only 3 here! lol

Last one to leave please close the door...

CCTelander
10-15-2017, 08:26 AM
https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-25-2014/fWx327.gif


Oh, would that it were so! Lol

otherone
10-15-2017, 08:32 AM
Last one to leave please close the door...

But what if they don't? Where is the enforcement? Where are the consequences?

http://i4.glitter-graphics.org/pub/1034/1034584omd0d8di2o.gif

Sonny Tufts
10-15-2017, 08:57 AM
You should perhaps quote him in the entirety so as to not miss his point, that no one can "claim" to have authority over you.

Except that's not what he said -- he said "NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else." So if no one has any authority over me and no one has any over you and we get into a disagreement that we can't settle peacefully, it's whoever has the most physical power to exert his will on the other that wins.


But the State is the absolute definition of might makes right. That is what the "law" is all about.

Not quite. While you might not agree, I see a distinction between pure physical power and law, which is power that has been legitimized in some fashion. The simplest example would be where you and I enter into a contract and agree that any dispute is to be settled by an independent arbitrator, whose decision will not only be final but will be enforced by physical force. By entering into such an agreement we have legitimized the use of force by the arbitrator.

It s gets more complicated when more than just the two of us are involved and when something other than a contract is at issue. Many on this site would argue that unless one has explicitly consented to the application of a law one isn't bound to observe it and any enforcement against one who hasn't consented is illegitimate. But all that means is that I can commit any series of violent acts against other people who will have absolutely no grounds to stop or punish me other than their use of physical force -- i.e., might making right.

ChristianAnarchist
10-15-2017, 09:17 AM
Except that's not what he said -- he said "NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else." So if no one has any authority over me and no one has any over you and we get into a disagreement that we can't settle peacefully, it's whoever has the most physical power to exert his will on the other that wins.



Not quite. While you might not agree, I see a distinction between pure physical power and law, which is power that has been legitimized in some fashion. The simplest example would be where you and I enter into a contract and agree that any dispute is to be settled by an independent arbitrator, whose decision will not only be final but will be enforced by physical force. By entering into such an agreement we have legitimized the use of force by the arbitrator.

It s gets more complicated when more than just the two of us are involved and when something other than a contract is at issue. Many on this site would argue that unless one has explicitly consented to the application of a law one isn't bound to observe it and any enforcement against one who hasn't consented is illegitimate. But all that means is that I can commit any series of violent acts against other people who will have absolutely no grounds to stop or punish me other than their use of physical force -- i.e., might making right.

Yes, conflict is different when there is no contract (chance encounter on the street for instance). In that instance you would need to make some kind of agreement with your other party. This "agreement" might come to play after you have broken chairs over each other's heads and you have the other party down on the ground with your hands around his neck. You can kill him but since he's an unknown to you it might not be wise because he might have powerful friends who will come looking for you. At that point you might "agree" to let go of his neck and he will "agree" to stop the fighting and look to a non-violent solution. This is verbal contract in action and it really does work everyday if you look around you. Fender benders for instance. Haven't you ever agreed to a cash payment "under the table" for a bump on your car? These kinds of events can work out without violence and sometimes there's violence. If you call the goons, however, there's a very good chance of violence.

There's violence either way, I think the anarchist way results in LESS violence...

Swordsmyth
10-15-2017, 08:28 PM
Yes, conflict is different when there is no contract (chance encounter on the street for instance). In that instance you would need to make some kind of agreement with your other party. This "agreement" might come to play after you have broken chairs over each other's heads and you have the other party down on the ground with your hands around his neck. You can kill him but since he's an unknown to you it might not be wise because he might have powerful friends who will come looking for you. At that point you might "agree" to let go of his neck and he will "agree" to stop the fighting and look to a non-violent solution. This is verbal contract in action and it really does work everyday if you look around you. Fender benders for instance. Haven't you ever agreed to a cash payment "under the table" for a bump on your car? These kinds of events can work out without violence and sometimes there's violence. If you call the goons, however, there's a very good chance of violence.

There's violence either way, I think the anarchist way results in LESS violence...

LOL

Does competition result in less commerce? Or is that what monopoly does?

ChristianAnarchist
10-15-2017, 10:11 PM
LOL

Does competition result in less commerce? Or is that what monopoly does?

Is that tongue in cheek?? Because of course competition results in more commerce. Monopoly results in poor service and high prices... Is there any doubt??

Swordsmyth
10-15-2017, 10:14 PM
Is that tongue in cheek?? Because of course competition results in more commerce. Monopoly results in poor service and high prices... Is there any doubt??

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcontentinjection.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2Fhow-to-get-rid-of-mice.jpg&f=1


Then competition in government will result in MORE tyranny not less.

Origanalist
10-15-2017, 10:16 PM
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcontentinjection.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2Fhow-to-get-rid-of-mice.jpg&f=1


Then competition in government will result in MORE tyranny not less.

Of course, because if given a choice people will choose tyranny.

Swordsmyth
10-15-2017, 10:22 PM
Of course, because if given a choice people will choose tyranny.

Then the best way to limit tyranny is a limited monopoly on government in a given territory.

That territory must be large enough and have enough resources and people to defend itself from enemies foreign and domestic.

Welcome to world history and why anarchy doesn't last and governments do.

Swordsmyth
10-16-2017, 12:37 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?515927-Kafkatrapping

KafkatrappingModel M: “The act of arguing against the theory of anti-{sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} demonstrates that you are either {sinful,racist,sexist, homophobic, oppressive} or do not understand the theory of anti-{sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression}, and your argument can therefore be dismissed as either corrupt or incompetent.”

ChristianAnarchist
10-16-2017, 05:56 AM
Then the best way to limit tyranny is a limited monopoly on government in a given territory.

That territory must be large enough and have enough resources and people to defend itself from enemies foreign and domestic.

Welcome to world history and why anarchy doesn't last and governments do.

Longevity does not make them "good"...

5891

Swordsmyth
10-16-2017, 12:00 PM
LOL

Does competition result in less commerce? Or is that what monopoly does?


Is that tongue in cheek?? Because of course competition results in more commerce. Monopoly results in poor service and high prices... Is there any doubt??


https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcontentinjection.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2Fhow-to-get-rid-of-mice.jpg&f=1


Then competition in government will result in MORE tyranny not less.


Of course, because if given a choice people will choose tyranny.


Then the best way to limit tyranny is a limited monopoly on government in a given territory.

That territory must be large enough and have enough resources and people to defend itself from enemies foreign and domestic.

Welcome to world history and why anarchy doesn't last and governments do.


Longevity does not make them "good"...

5891

No but they reduce tyranny compared to anarchy, and a lack of longevity is a fatal flaw in anarchy, it is always replaced with tyranny unless good people replace it with good government. See above.

Natural Citizen
10-16-2017, 02:36 PM
3.0 probably came closest to the truth. Words on paper don't mean anything unless people actually enforce it. In civic terms, yes government has a monopoly on force. But, a more timid example would be the Ron Paul forum rules and guidelines. They don't mean squat unless a moderator or administrator chooses to enforce them. As soon as they start letting things slide, the forum becomes a free-for-all and whoever can spam the most garbage or call the most names is declared the winner. Anarchy ensues, for better but usually for worse, as you end up with 100-page threads with 2 or 3 people going at it and misinterpreting or misrepresenting everything that is said.

Perfect example.

And, yes, Rev was right. Any ideal must be secured if it is to be made applicable.

Only other thing I would add is what is Legal is not always Lawful. In fact, it seldom is.

PierzStyx
10-16-2017, 04:51 PM
NO ONE has any "authority" over anyone else.
I submit Sir. that. that is NOT true and you know it. are you not an "authority" on anything?
I am an "authority" on something. HVAC/R.
and I have proven this point countless times right here on RPF's.

connotative and denotative meanings... the former is subjective.
the latter is not.

when the people cannot define what their principles are. they have none.
and make decisions based on emotions.

what are the principles of Anarchy?
or is that mere concept.. antithetic to the cause of Anarchy? :confused:

If you cannot distinguish between someTHING and someONE then you've got a serious problem.

PierzStyx
10-16-2017, 04:55 PM
No but they reduce tyranny compared to anarchy, and a lack of longevity is a fatal flaw in anarchy, it is always replaced with tyranny unless good people replace it with good government. See above.

There is no such thing as a good State. The very basic foundation of any and all States is tyranny. And they will only become more and more tyrannical. Ther eis not a single State in all of history that has ever reduced tyranny.

Anarchy is the absence of all tyranny. It is possible that violence and bloodshed could happen in an anarchist society. But this is so in all forms of human organization. Anarchists realize though that anarchy gives the least bloodshed and causes the least harm for the most people. It is not perfect, nothing is perfect. But it is better in every realistic case and example you can conjure than the State, any type of State.

PierzStyx
10-16-2017, 05:02 PM
Yes, conflict is different when there is no contract (chance encounter on the street for instance). In that instance you would need to make some kind of agreement with your other party. This "agreement" might come to play after you have broken chairs over each other's heads and you have the other party down on the ground with your hands around his neck. You can kill him but since he's an unknown to you it might not be wise because he might have powerful friends who will come looking for you. At that point you might "agree" to let go of his neck and he will "agree" to stop the fighting and look to a non-violent solution. This is verbal contract in action and it really does work everyday if you look around you. Fender benders for instance. Haven't you ever agreed to a cash payment "under the table" for a bump on your car? These kinds of events can work out without violence and sometimes there's violence. If you call the goons, however, there's a very good chance of violence.

There's violence either way, I think the anarchist way results in LESS violence...

Exactly. Just look at the arguments.

Statists argue that anarchy will lead to warlordism as local warlords seize power. Let us assume this is true. Small time warlords with small time armies either must give the people they rule great benefits or they will be overwhelmed by the much larger population. At the very least people will have more power over their lives and who rules them.

On the other hand, the State is warlordism taken to the Nth degree. Your local mayor? Nothing but a warlord who uses the local military force -the police- to maintain power. And if you ever threaten the warlord's state the warlord can call in greater and overwhelming force from an even more powerful warlord above them -the Governor and state National Guard- unlike in anarchy where there would be no greater power and no ability to overwhelm the people with brute might. And if that fails, your local warlord and his boss warlord can call in their master -the Head of State, the President in the USA- who will declare your local demands for justice and liberty to be a "rebellion" and send in the might of the national military to devastate and dominate you, murdering you into submission.

Can anarchy get bad? Absolutely. But even at its worst anarchy is a far better system than the State at its best. Anarchist societies have less violence, less war, less destruction, whereas the State can only exist by and through those things.

Swordsmyth
10-16-2017, 07:09 PM
Exactly. Just look at the arguments.

Statists argue that anarchy will lead to warlordism as local warlords seize power. Let us assume this is true. Small time warlords with small time armies either must give the people they rule great benefits or they will be overwhelmed by the much larger population. At the very least people will have more power over their lives and who rules them.

On the other hand, the State is warlordism taken to the Nth degree. Your local mayor? Nothing but a warlord who uses the local military force -the police- to maintain power. And if you ever threaten the warlord's state the warlord can call in greater and overwhelming force from an even more powerful warlord above them -the Governor and state National Guard- unlike in anarchy where there would be no greater power and no ability to overwhelm the people with brute might. And if that fails, your local warlord and his boss warlord can call in their master -the Head of State, the President in the USA- who will declare your local demands for justice and liberty to be a "rebellion" and send in the might of the national military to devastate and dominate you, murdering you into submission.

Can anarchy get bad? Absolutely. But even at its worst anarchy is a far better system than the State at its best. Anarchist societies have less violence, less war, less destruction, whereas the State can only exist by and through those things.

And what is the success rate of tribal societies without the support of a more advanced state successfully defending their freedom against a more advanced conqueror?

Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.

HVACTech
10-16-2017, 07:18 PM
If you cannot distinguish between someTHING and someONE then you've got a serious problem.

brilliant!

you win the interwebs tonight.

Natural Citizen
10-16-2017, 07:31 PM
I think that Pierz is likely a tree hugger. I can't say for sure, but likely so.

HVACTech
10-16-2017, 07:34 PM
And what is the success rate of tribal societies without the support of a more advanced state successfully defending their freedom against a more advanced conqueror?

Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.

your logic is infallible..
however.. it does not address the central premise of RPF's.

how can one achieve. and wear.. the noble robes of "most pure Anarchist"
on these self same pages?

I humbly submit that my own level of "pure" Anarchy is NOT stringent enuff... :o

HVACTech
10-16-2017, 07:50 PM
I think that Pierz is likely a tree hugger.

Reported.

I like trees. :)
the trees helped merry and Pippen.
Frodo would have never made it without them and Samwise.

Swordsmyth
10-16-2017, 07:55 PM
Reported.

I like trees. :)
the trees helped merry and Pippen.
Frodo would have never made it without them and Samwise.

Ents are one thing but what about old man willow?

HVACTech
10-16-2017, 08:23 PM
Ents are one thing but what about old man willow?

to properly honor the OP.
those are "Myths" Sir.

the "rule of Law" is not. this is the foundation of our Republic.

I get pissed when someone suggests that I live in a "Democracy" :mad:

PierzStyx
10-17-2017, 11:49 AM
And what is the success rate of tribal societies without the support of a more advanced state successfully defending their freedom against a more advanced conqueror?

Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.

Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

Further, it doesn't matter how big or small you are if the conqueror has far superior technology if your only method of resistance is violence. You're going to lose. It doesn't matter if you're a state or not. Being a state in fact grants no great possibility of success or failure in warfare.

The Inca and Aztec both were highly developed states with more well-trained men, more organization, and a greater knowledge of the territory than their Spanish conquerors. Yet the Inca and Aztec still lost. Sometimes in insanely lopsided battles. At the Battle of Cajamarca, for example, around 180 Spanish soldier defeated anywhere between 3,000-8,000 highly trained Incan warriors. Why? Cannons and steel. It has nothing to do with Anarchy vs. the State and everything to do with technology.

In fact, if you want to compare, the Native Americans of the US and Canada, even though they were smaller groups, more anarchic groups, were able to put off total domination by their more advanced invaders by hundreds of years. Whereas the highly statists Aztecs and Incans fell in a matter of years, it took centuries for the English and Americans to totally pacify the Natives. You still have isolated Native resistance as late as 1924 in America!

So, being a state has nothing to do with success or failure at war. But if we look at which groups are able to continue fighting the longest, even against technologically superior foes with greater numbers, it seems the more anarchic the better. Anarchy proves superior.

And lets assume you argument that anarchist societies live in constant warfare -a statement that is not true, but for the sake of argument let us assume- how is that any different than the state?

Just look at America as an example. America has been constantly at war since its birth, 93% of the time – 222 out of 239 years – since 1776. If you added up all the years the US has without any wars it only adds up to 21 years, total. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html

That is truly war without respite, without peace. And since you have already acknowledged that anarchist societies "have smaller instances of tyranny and violence" we can see that not only do states cause more death and tyranny, but they are also in a constant state of unending warfare. They are constantly at war and more people die in their wars than in anarchist conflicts.

So even if anarchists societies are, as you said, constantly engage din low levels of conflict, they are still better than statist ones.

And of course, the above statistics are concerned solely with military conflicts. They do not take into account how the State is constantly waging war against its civilian population through constantly applied police violence and terror. Through its domestic military occupation arm -the police- the state is constantly at war with the people of the country themselves.

Creating a State- a violent tyrannical force constantly seeking to expand its control over all- in order to defeat a tyrant makes as little sense as ingesting cyanide to counteract the deadly dose of arsenic you swallowed.

Swordsmyth
10-17-2017, 12:27 PM
Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

Further, it doesn't matter how big or small you are if the conqueror has far superior technology if your only method of resistance is violence. You're going to lose. It doesn't matter if you're a state or not. Being a state in fact grants no great possibility of success or failure in warfare.

The Inca and Aztec both were highly developed states with more well-trained men, more organization, and a greater knowledge of the territory than their Spanish conquerors. Yet the Inca and Aztec still lost. Sometimes in insanely lopsided battles. At the Battle of Cajamarca, for example, around 180 Spanish soldier defeated anywhere between 3,000-8,000 highly trained Incan warriors. Why? Cannons and steel. It has nothing to do with Anarchy vs. the State and everything to do with technology.

In fact, if you want to compare, the Native Americans of the US and Canada, even though they were smaller groups, more anarchic groups, were able to put off total domination by their more advanced invaders by hundreds of years. Whereas the highly statists Aztecs and Incans fell in a matter of years, it took centuries for the English and Americans to totally pacify the Natives. You still have isolated Native resistance as late as 1924 in America!

So, being a state has nothing to do with success or failure at war. But if we look at which groups are able to continue fighting the longest, even against technologically superior foes with greater numbers, it seems the more anarchic the better. Anarchy proves superior.

I was not referring to technology, the Romans conquered all of the tribal peoples within their reasonable reach with no significant technological advantages, it was their superior organization.
The only thing that delayed the conquest of some North American Indians was the Europeans chosen pace of expansion




And lets assume you argument that anarchist societies live in constant warfare -a statement that is not true, but for the sake of argument let us assume- how is that any different than the state?

Just look at America as an example. America has been constantly at war since its birth, 93% of the time – 222 out of 239 years – since 1776. If you added up all the years the US has without any wars it only adds up to 21 years, total. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html

That is truly war without respite, without peace. And since you have already acknowledged that anarchist societies "have smaller instances of tyranny and violence" we can see that not only do states cause more death and tyranny, but they are also in a constant state of unending warfare. They are constantly at war and more people die in their wars than in anarchist conflicts.

So even if anarchists societies are, as you said, constantly engage din low levels of conflict, they are still better than statist ones.

And of course, the above statistics are concerned solely with military conflicts. They do not take into account how the State is constantly waging war against its civilian population through constantly applied police violence and terror. Through its domestic military occupation arm -the police- the state is constantly at war with the people of the country themselves.

America's "small wars" are not significantly different from anarchy and we have had far less crime and tyranny at home than anarchy or tribalism would have produced, and you are ignoring other countries like Switzerland and the many cases of major atrocities committed by anarchic or tribal societies.


Creating a State- a violent tyrannical force constantly seeking to expand its control over all- in order to defeat a tyrant makes as little sense as ingesting cyanide to counteract the deadly dose of arsenic you swallowed.

Anarchy can't last and is rife with injustice and tribal societies are always tyrannical, therefore you must create a government designed to limit tyranny in order to come as close to perfection as is possible in this corrupt world.

Madison320
10-17-2017, 12:34 PM
Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.


What country would you rank as the freest?

PierzStyx
10-17-2017, 01:40 PM
What country would you rank as the freest?

Why settle for "freest"? 'Tis a bit like saying, "Which one of these scoops of ice cream would you like, the one with a handful of dog shit in it, the one with a marble sized amount of dog shit in it, or this one with a pebble size amount of dog shit in it?"

You all are arguing over how much shit is too much shit when the correct answer is you shouldn't be eating shit at all.

PierzStyx
10-17-2017, 02:13 PM
Responses in bold


I was not referring to technology, the Romans conquered all of the tribal peoples within their reasonable reach with no significant technological advantages, it was their superior organization.

I know you weren't referring to technology. You were trying to argue that Statist organization offered superior form over anarchist social forms. I pointed out that this isn't true, it is technology that allowed such advances.

The Romans had serious technological advances over the mostly Germanic tribes of Europe, including steel armor, weapons, siege weapons, even Greek Fire. Even with those they were never able to take anything past the Rhine or north of Hadrian's Wall. Rome was very successful at defeating variously organized states -Carthage, Egypt, the city-states of Greece, Persia, etc.- but never was able to truly pacify the tribes of Western Europe -the Germanics, Ireland, Scotland, etc.- or the Eastern European tribes -such as the Huns, Magyars, etc.

The only thing that delayed the conquest of some North American Indians was the Europeans chosen pace of expansion

Yeah, and that thing that set the pace? Native American resistance.

America's "small wars" are not significantly different from anarchy and we have had far less crime and tyranny at home than anarchy or tribalism would have produced, and you are ignoring other countries like Switzerland and the many cases of major atrocities committed by anarchic or tribal societies.

Statist wars are always different from anarchy. Indeed, most of America's "small wars" were highly organized military campaigns ordered by the central national authority.

Far less tyranny? Tell that to the millions of slaves with no rights, the millions of women held just higher than slaves with few to no rights, to all those forced into subservience and poverty by Jim Crow and burned alive for the crime of talking to a white woman, those who have suffered and died since the planting of Fascism in America during WWI and the establishment of American Fascism during the Great Depression, the millions drafted and murdered by the State for its pleasure and power, the 317 million today who live in a police state. Far less tyranny? You're delusional. At no time has America ever been a "free" country.

I'm not ignoring the limits of anarchist society. Anarchists aren't utopians. They recognize that humans are capable of great evil. Which is why you don't give them power in the first place. The only one ignoring the reality are those utopians who keep trying to justify the existence of the State.

Anarchy can't last and is rife with injustice and tribal societies are always tyrannical, therefore you must create a government designed to limit tyranny in order to come as close to perfection as is possible in this corrupt world.

Just the opposite. Tribe place huge limitations on the power of chiefs. For example, chiefs could not compel you to obey them. They had to prove they were worth following by first bestowing some gift upon the family. In order to act they had to have the approval of the tribal elders, who in turn had to have the approval of the clans. If individuals in a clan did not wish to follow the elder or chief they did not have to do so. Even in war a war chief could not compel you to serve them nor punish you for not doing so. They had to win soldiers by distributing gifts and presenting their strategy, convincing others it would be successful.

If you want to talk about societies where those in authority have the power to beat, torture, and murder you for refusing to obey them, you're talking about a Statist society. You're talking about Presidents, Kings, and Generals. I can think of no better illustration than this:

In war if you try to leave a European army the general could have you shot for "cowardice" or "treason." In a Native war band you could not be compelled to stay. You could certainly lose face for backing out of the fight after committing, but you would not be harmed by the War Chief for doing so.

Again, you demonstrate that the very essence of the State is tyranny.

Madison320
10-17-2017, 02:30 PM
Why settle for "freest"? 'Tis a bit like saying, "Which one of these scoops of ice cream would you like, the one with a handful of dog $#@! in it, the one with a marble sized amount of dog $#@! in it, or this one with a pebble size amount of dog $#@! in it?"

You all are arguing over how much $#@! is too much $#@! when the correct answer is you shouldn't be eating $#@! at all.

Duh, you're the one ranking them. If you claim China and Singapore rank low on the scale, who ranks high?


Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

Swordsmyth
10-17-2017, 02:51 PM
I know you weren't referring to technology. You were trying to argue that Statist organization offered superior form over anarchist social forms. I pointed out that this isn't true, it is technology that allowed such advances.

The Romans had serious technological advances over the mostly Germanic tribes of Europe, including steel armor, weapons,
siege weapons, even Greek Fire.
They did not have Steel and the Byzantines invented Greek fire.



Even with those they were never able to take anything past the Rhine or north of Hadrian's Wall. Rome was very successful at defeating variously organized states -Carthage, Egypt, the city-states of Greece, Persia, etc.- but never was able to truly pacify the tribes of Western Europe -the Germanics, Ireland, Scotland, etc.- or the Eastern European tribes -such as the Huns, Magyars, etc.
They conquered Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Britain, and many other tribal areas, those they did not were simply beyond their reasonable reach.

Yeah, and that thing that set the pace? Native American resistance.LOL

Statist wars are always different from anarchy. Indeed, most of America's "small wars" were highly organized military campaigns ordered by the central national authority.
That is not a significant difference.
Far less tyranny? Tell that to the millions of slaves with no rights, the millions of women held just higher than slaves with few to no rights, to all those forced into subservience and poverty by Jim Crow and burned alive for the crime of talking to a white woman, those who have suffered and died since the planting of Fascism in America during WWI and the establishment of American Fascism during the Great Depression, the millions drafted and murdered by the State for its pleasure and power, the 317 million today who live in a police state. Far less tyranny? You're delusional. At no time has America ever been a "free" country.
Tribal societies have done all those things.
I'm not ignoring the limits of anarchist society. Anarchists aren't utopians. They recognize that humans are capable of great evil. Which is why you don't give them power in the first place. The only one ignoring the reality are those utopians who keep trying to justify the existence of the State.

Anarchy has no means to prevent people from seizing power, a properly designed state can limit it.


Just the opposite. Tribe place huge limitations on the power of chiefs. For example, chiefs could not compel you to obey them. They had to prove they were worth following by first bestowing some gift upon the family. In order to act they had to have the approval of the tribal elders, who in turn had to have the approval of the clans. If individuals in a clan did not wish to follow the elder or chief they did not have to do so. Even in war a war chief could not compel you to serve them nor punish you for not doing so. They had to win soldiers by distributing gifts and presenting their strategy, convincing others it would be successful.

If you want to talk about societies where those in authority have the power to beat, torture, and murder you for refusing to obey them, you're talking about a Statist society. You're talking about Presidents, Kings, and Generals. I can think of no better illustration than this:

In war if you try to leave a European army the general could have you shot for "cowardice" or "treason." In a Native war band you could not be compelled to stay. You could certainly lose face for backing out of the fight after committing, but you would not be harmed by the War Chief for doing so.

Again, you demonstrate that the very essence of the State is tyranny.

Only some tribes behaved as you describe, and they were tyrannical in other ways, they also were constantly at war to supply booty to bribe their members.

ChristianAnarchist
10-17-2017, 03:29 PM
Anarchy has no means to prevent people from seizing power, a properly designed state can limit it.



Proper "anarchy" has the most excellent way of preventing people from seizing power... It's called personal possession of weapons (what is laughingly called here the 2nd AM.)...

There is no society where the "people" are armed to any extent that they wish to be, and has been "conquered". There is no way to conquer an armed society (with or without a goonerment) because you will get shot at from every bush and tree. It's the reason we cannot "conquer" some of these little tiny countries. They have guns and they DON'T want us there. We kill lots of them but that just makes the ones who survive more angry.

ALL the examples you can point to supporting your argument that anarchy does not work are simply because you have not used an anarchy to support your claim. In fact, I can't cite any true example of anarchy in history (I'm sure there must have been some) but none of what you cite are anarchy...

HVACTech
10-17-2017, 05:28 PM
Proper "anarchy" has the most excellent way of preventing people from seizing power... It's called personal possession of weapons (what is laughingly called here the 2nd AM.)...

There is no society where the "people" are armed to any extent that they wish to be, and has been "conquered". There is no way to conquer an armed society (with or without a goonerment) because you will get shot at from every bush and tree. It's the reason we cannot "conquer" some of these little tiny countries. They have guns and they DON'T want us there. We kill lots of them but that just makes the ones who survive more angry.

ALL the examples you can point to supporting your argument that anarchy does not work are simply because you have not used an anarchy to support your claim. In fact, I can't cite any true example of anarchy in history (I'm sure there must have been some) but none of what you cite are anarchy...

Human History is replete with examples of Anarchy.
in fact, pure Anarchy was.. the very first form of Human goonerment!

Anarchy is the rule of law...
and always occurs, after any major conflict or calamity...
until order is restored.

pure Democracy and pure Anarchy are only apart by degrees of confusion. in truth. they are one and the same. :)

HVACTech
10-17-2017, 06:13 PM
me, myself and I.
Pontificate thusly,

I hereby nominate phill4paul to be the most badass Anarchist on RPF's. :cool:
that guy...
lives by the seat of his pants... he has no boss and answers to NONE.
he pays no taxes to support his imprisonment.
he has no debts. and lives life by his own rules.

this guy accepts NO excuses. from ANY other wannabe Anarchists.
he understands the rule of law. because he lives by it each and everyday.
he will probably sleep in tomorrow if he wants to...
(or needs to) :p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdphvuyaV_I

lilymc
10-17-2017, 06:17 PM
^ lolol

I nominate this as their theme song:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI

ChristianAnarchist
10-17-2017, 08:40 PM
Human History is replete with examples of Anarchy.
in fact, pure Anarchy was.. the very first form of Human goonerment!

Anarchy is the rule of law...
and always occurs, after any major conflict or calamity...
until order is restored.

pure Democracy and pure Anarchy are only apart by degrees of confusion. in truth. they are one and the same. :)

Certainly the "rule of law" is anarchy. "They" (the goonerment) trick the little people into thinking the "law" exists but only those at the top seem to realize that it's all a shell game. There's nothing under the cup. Law is a joke and doesn't apply to the "important" people. This is anarchy. This is a point I've made for years but there are only a few who "get it". Welcome to the club!

HVACTech
10-18-2017, 06:54 PM
Certainly the "rule of law" is anarchy. "They" (the goonerment) trick the little people into thinking the "law" exists but only those at the top seem to realize that it's all a shell game. There's nothing under the cup. Law is a joke and doesn't apply to the "important" people. This is anarchy. This is a point I've made for years but there are only a few who "get it". Welcome to the club!

true that Sir.
a debt based service economy...
is based upon Unicorns shitting rainbow Skittles....
and upon this fact.. we can certainly agree. :)

do you have a new roommate? and how young is she?
or do you not remember talking about.. who you invite into your home?
you teach at a school. and are very coy about what it is you are teaching...

reveal to me, what it is that you pretend to be...
and I will rip you a new Azzhole.
welcome to the club. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-5KR6I3Dho

r3volution 3.0
10-18-2017, 07:45 PM
Except the whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to brainwash the masses so he wouldn't need the gun.

Guns ultimately fail. You murder enough people long enough and they eventually revolt. Look at the USSR for example.

In order to endure you need people to believe you are right. People will endure anything if they believe it. Make them think they matter? And they'll follow you into Hell itself.

The school is ultimately more effective than the gun, but the school (i.e. the monopoly, tax-financed school) requires the gun.

Culture/Ideology is downstream from power.


If you oppose teh idea of might makes right then you're halfway to being an anarchist.

"Might makes right" can be understood normatively or descriptively. Anarchism isn't unique in denying that might makes right in the normative sense; every libertarian denies that might ought to make right. Anarchists are only unique in denying that might makes right in a descriptive sense; i.e. that the fellow with the guns will in fact make the rules, right or wrong.


There is no such thing as a good State. The very basic foundation of any and all States is tyranny. And they will only become more and more tyrannical. Ther eis not a single State in all of history that has ever reduced tyranny.

That's absurd, and I know that you, as a student of history, know that.

Not all states are equally oppressive; states do sometimes become less oppressive over time.

The absolute dichotomy "anarchy or tyranny" is an impediment to thought.


It is possible that violence and bloodshed could happen in an anarchist society. But this is so in all forms of human organization. Anarchists realize though that anarchy gives the least bloodshed and causes the least harm for the most people. It is not perfect, nothing is perfect. But it is better in every realistic case and example you can conjure than the State, any type of State.

No, anarchists believe that, contrary to both theory and the empirical evidence.


Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.

Precisely

As societies become more complex, war becomes more destructive per episode but also much less frequent.

The overall result of this increasing political centralization is less violence.

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/img/Share-of-Deaths_Ethnographic-Evidence-on-Violence.png



Exactly. Just look at the arguments.

Statists argue that anarchy will lead to warlordism as local warlords seize power. Let us assume this is true. Small time warlords with small time armies either must give the people they rule great benefits or they will be overwhelmed by the much larger population. At the very least people will have more power over their lives and who rules them.

If there must be a state (and there must), it is better that it be as secure as possible. An insecure state is more irrational and dangerous than a secure state. Compare relatively stable democracies in the West with unstable democracies in the third world. Compare Rome c. 1 AD with Rome c. 400 AD. This is true for the same reason that private property owners manage their property better when they aren't worried about it being stolen. It's a function of time preference.


Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

Further, it doesn't matter how big or small you are if the conqueror has far superior technology if your only method of resistance is violence. You're going to lose. It doesn't matter if you're a state or not. Being a state in fact grants no great possibility of success or failure in warfare.

The Inca and Aztec both were highly developed states with more well-trained men, more organization, and a greater knowledge of the territory than their Spanish conquerors. Yet the Inca and Aztec still lost. Sometimes in insanely lopsided battles. At the Battle of Cajamarca, for example, around 180 Spanish soldier defeated anywhere between 3,000-8,000 highly trained Incan warriors. Why? Cannons and steel. It has nothing to do with Anarchy vs. the State and everything to do with technology.

Technological development is a function of capital accumulation, which is a function of the security of property.

The state makes for more secure property, thereby accelerating capital accumulation and technological development.

The Amerindians were less developed because, for various reasons, they developed state societies later (or never).


The Romans had serious technological advances over the mostly Germanic tribes of Europe, including steel armor, weapons, siege weapons, even Greek Fire. Even with those they were never able to take anything past the Rhine or north of Hadrian's Wall. Rome was very successful at defeating variously organized states -Carthage, Egypt, the city-states of Greece, Persia, etc.- but never was able to truly pacify the tribes of Western Europe -the Germanics, Ireland, Scotland, etc.- or the Eastern European tribes -such as the Huns, Magyars, etc.

Less a lack of ability than a lack of inclination

The semi-nomadic peoples of those regions weren't worth conquering (no/insufficient taxable surplus).

...which is the same reason that they didn't form recognizable, territorial states of their own.

HVACTech
10-18-2017, 08:50 PM
I currently.. live in a "state" of Arkansas...
will it always be so?
how did this land.. become the "state" of Arkansas?
I KNOW what it means...
The Kansa tribe of Native Americans are closely associated with the Sioux tribes of the Great Plains. The word "Arkansas" itself is a French pronunciation ("Arcansas") of a Quapaw (a related "Kaw" tribe) word, akakaze, meaning "land of downriver people" or the Sioux word akakaze meaning "people of the south wind".

should I be mad at the Natives for creating this "State"?
and what is Arkansas today? is it in a "State" of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
or Sam Walton?
if we join Texas... will we still be in a "STATE" of Arkansas?
or will we be in a state of Texas? :toady:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqwpLVrmokY

ChristianAnarchist
10-18-2017, 10:20 PM
The overall result of this increasing political centralization is less violence.

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/img/Share-of-Deaths_Ethnographic-Evidence-on-Violence.png







That's some mighty impressive data you borrowed there. I went to the cite to find what their "sources" were. Really, do you expect me to believe all that info can be "extracted" from a few books? How in the world do you expect to extract that info from societies that lived many hundreds or even thousands of years ago?? Did they leave statistics for us? Perhaps this data was on their hard drives which we found intact.

Use common sense. These people (and there were only a couple of source books) have an agenda. I'm certainly not saying that I have "better" data because I'm simply pointing out the difficulty of getting accurate data at all. You could dig up a few graves but so what? You might have found graves from a war site. That would mess up the data. Violent death rates of 55%?? How does the society even reproduce with that kind of crazy number?

r3volution 3.0
10-18-2017, 10:32 PM
That's some mighty impressive data you borrowed there. I went to the cite to find what their "sources" were. Really, do you expect me to believe all that info can be "extracted" from a few books? How in the world do you expect to extract that info from societies that lived many hundreds or even thousands of years ago?? Did they leave statistics for us? Perhaps this data was on their hard drives which we found intact.

Use common sense. These people (and there were only a couple of source books) have an agenda. I'm certainly not saying that I have "better" data because I'm simply pointing out the difficulty of getting accurate data at all. You could dig up a few graves but so what? You might have found graves from a war site. That would mess up the data. Violent death rates of 55%?? How does the society even reproduce with that kind of crazy number?

In the case of long extinct societies, it's based on archaeological evidence (e.g. what % of bodies were found to have had spear-heads in their chest cavities). For others (both some of the non-state societies and some of the state societies), there is historical (i.e. written) evidence of causalities. Some of the stateless societies listed existed in the 19th/20th centuries, and Western scholars were present to record their horrific, unceasing feuds over goats and so forth. Then, for the the modern state societies, we have a pretty good idea (round to the nearest million) how many people were slaughtered in various wars. Take it as you will.

Swordsmyth
10-18-2017, 10:41 PM
Violent death rates of 55%?? How does the society even reproduce with that kind of crazy number?

Just breed a few times before you die, the analogy would be the meat industry, their herds reproduce with a near 100% violent death rate.

r3volution 3.0
10-18-2017, 10:44 PM
Just breed a few times before you die, the analogy would be the meat industry, their herds reproduce with a near 100% violent death rate.

Indeed..

For ~500,000 years, the human population of Earth was flat..

..wasn't because of wolves.

ChristianAnarchist
10-19-2017, 06:51 AM
Indeed..

For ~500,000 years, the human population of Earth was flat..

..wasn't because of wolves.

Yes, and lots of disease, predatory animals, and of course some murder. We will never know what the rate was...

A Son of Liberty
10-19-2017, 02:40 PM
No but they reduce tyranny compared to anarchy, and a lack of longevity is a fatal flaw in anarchy, it is always replaced with tyranny unless good people replace it with good government. See above.

I want you to read this very carefully, and slowly; and you really should spend some time thinking before you post a reply...

Did you not read the text in the posted image? Higgs EXPLICITY stated that all of the evil that statists tell us will befall humanity in a world without the State is ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE, yet there are REAL, ACTUAL, MIND-BOGGLING HORRORS CARRIED OUT BY (AND HERE'S A PARTICULARLY RELEVANT FACT) FANATICS OF THIS-OR-THAT CAPITAL 'S' STATE. FOR EMPHASIS AND CLARIFICATION, I'LL RE-ITERATE - THESE WERE NOT ACTS CARRIED OUT COINCIDENTALLY BY STATISTS... THEY WERE BY AND LARGE CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THEIR PARTICULAR STATE.

Thus, you cannot make the statement that you just made (in essence, that "well statelessness would be worse"). I mean, you can make that statement, but you seem to be a chimpanzee when you do so. It is so that there are few examples of stateless societies; and as such there is little documented record of how they would behave, or deal with the world around them. However there is ABUNDANT evidence of how statist societies behave and deal with the world around them and that record is HORRENDOUSLY SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD.

This is a matter of the historical record. This is not conjecture. This is not speculation. This is fact.

It is BIZARRE to me, the level of antagonism given to advocates of statelessness, here.

Swordsmyth
10-19-2017, 02:45 PM
I want you to read this very carefully, and slowly; and you really should spend some time thinking before you post a reply...

Did you not read the text in the posted image? Higgs EXPLICITY stated that all of the evil that statists tell us will befall humanity in a world without the State is ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE, yet there are REAL, ACTUAL, MIND-BOGGLING HORRORS CARRIED OUT BY (AND HERE'S A PARTICULARLY RELEVANT FACT) FANATICS OF THIS-OR-THAT CAPITAL 'S' STATE. FOR EMPHASIS AND CLARIFICATION, I'LL RE-ITERATE - THESE WERE NOT ACTS CARRIED OUT COINCIDENTALLY BY STATISTS... THEY WERE BY AND LARGE CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THEIR PARTICULAR STATE.

Thus, you cannot make the statement that you just made (in essence, that "well statelessness would be worse"). I mean, you can make that statement, but you seem to be a chimpanzee when you do so. It is so that there are few examples of stateless societies; and as such there is little documented record of how they would behave, or deal with the world around them. However there is ABUNDANT evidence of how statist societies behave and deal with the world around them and that record is HORRENDOUSLY SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD.

This is a matter of the historical record. This is not conjecture. This is not speculation. This is fact.

It is BIZARRE to me, the level of antagonism given to advocates of statelessness, here.



https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/img/Share-of-Deaths_Ethnographic-Evidence-on-Violence.png




And statelessness is impossible anyway, you will be conquered and you will be worse off than if you formed your own government.

A Son of Liberty
10-19-2017, 03:54 PM
You didn't reply to what I said, but that's fine. That's exactly what happens every time one makes a point around here anymore, so fuck it.

Swordsmyth
10-19-2017, 03:57 PM
You didn't reply to what I said, but that's fine. That's exactly what happens every time one makes a point around here anymore, so $#@! it.
You didn't read R3v's graphic I quoted.

A Son of Liberty
10-19-2017, 04:06 PM
You didn't read R3v's graphic I quoted.

You don't understand what we advocates of statelessness are talking about. But thats ok. You just keep stealing and killing. You're building a better society! Just like Stalin... ya gotta break a few eggs, right??

ChristianAnarchist
10-19-2017, 04:11 PM
And statelessness is impossible anyway, you will be conquered and you will be worse off than if you formed your own government.



You claim it would be impossible... forgive me for not believing u...

A Son of Liberty
10-19-2017, 04:47 PM
And statelessness is impossible anyway, you will be conquered and you will be worse off than if you formed your own government.

A - your assertion that a stateless society would be conquered holds as much weight in this discussion as my (sic) assertion that a stateless society would not be conquered. In other words, you have no proof, nor do I.

B - Working to form a government in and of itself does nothing to assure that said government would remain within the (presumptive) scope you would lay out for it. Please see the founding of the Federal government of the United States. As such, there is a real-world, specific example of the failure of your ideology (i.e., "minarchism"). In practical terms, we can reference a specific point in human social history where an effort was made to establish a limited state with the VERY goals which you have specified; and within a scant 240 years, we can see that this institution has metastasized and turned into a virulent institution which not only does NOT preserve individual liberty, but which specifically upends and obviates it. Theoretically, you may be correct that the thoughtful statelessness that we "anarchists" here advocate may be an undesirable situation for mankind... Fine; yet that is nothing in the face of the actual, real-world SHTSHOW that your so-called "minarchy" has ACTUALLY wrought upon humanity. So, ya know, stick your theories about what you think might happen in a stateless world up your own ass.

ChristianAnarchist
10-19-2017, 06:39 PM
A - your assertion that a stateless society would be conquered holds as much weight in this discussion as my (sic) assertion that a stateless society would not be conquered. In other words, you have no proof, nor do I.

B - Working to form a government in and of itself does nothing to assure that said government would remain within the (presumptive) scope you would lay out for it. Please see the founding of the Federal government of the United States. As such, there is a real-world, specific example of the failure of your ideology (i.e., "minarchism"). In practical terms, we can reference a specific point in human social history where an effort was made to establish a limited state with the VERY goals which you have specified; and within a scant 240 years, we can see that this institution has metastasized and turned into a virulent institution which not only does NOT preserve individual liberty, but which specifically upends and obviates it. Theoretically, you may be correct that the thoughtful statelessness that we "anarchists" here advocate may be an undesirable situation for mankind... Fine; yet that is nothing in the face of the actual, real-world SHTSHOW that your so-called "minarchy" has ACTUALLY wrought upon humanity. So, ya know, stick your theories about what you think might happen in a stateless world up your own ass.

Ooooo... Put very nicely. Too bad I'm outa rep...

A Son of Liberty
10-20-2017, 04:08 AM
While I'm on about it I'll also add (as fish armor, or maybe occam's banana, often correctly points out) that we ARE currently living within the minarchist's conception of the State; in that, those with the authority to determine the length and width of the State (in our case, "the People") have expressly stated that our current level of capital-G Government is the least amount of the State that we cannot do without.

Now, minarchists may argue that for this very reason "democracy" is not the way to establish a minarchist state; that monarchy is preferable to democracy, because one man is more easily contained than "the People", if I may be succinct with that argument. Yet in either case, the scope of the State remains to the caprice of men, or a man. Ultimately what one does when he advocates for a State is to metaphorically put the objective nature of man as ordained by God (or Nature if you prefer), on the rack while asking him (or them) to not take advantage of the situation to his (or their) own ends.

In a world without the State, as advocated by us anti-statists here, we at least acknowledge an even playing field. We do NOT advocate a position of advantage for some subset of mankind, whether it be one man (monarchy), a few men (oligarchy), a majority of men (democracy) or some machination of the latter ("constitutional republic", etc.).

Anti-statists (if you will) acknowledge the objective nature of man and seek to align human society with that nature. That is a philosophical and principled position. What is up for debate, of course, is the practical implications but, again, from a philosophical point of view the anti-state position is unassailable. Now, we argue that if the philosophical position is objectively correct then that is what should be put into practice. As it should be. The debate here SHOULD be to upend the philosophical principle first, then to recommend how the principle - the objective reality of human life - should be put into practice. Anti-statists do that here. The Statists do not. They start from the practical, without ever formally acknowledging the underlying philosophy.

The argument for an order of human society (be it statelessness or the State) should start from a defensible philosophical position, and a person should take a logically consistent position if he wants his ideas taken seriously. Otherwise, we're left with nothing more than castles made of sand, where there is no rhyme nor reason as to what is or is not acceptable. Such a society inevitably leads to chaos, as we see in our world today as a consequence.

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 04:46 AM
We were to be a nation of laws; not men. Where the rights of the minority, or one, were protected against the force of the majority. The Constitution was written to bind down the federal government to just a very few functions. While the majority of any laws were to be local, while most were from self-governing.

Our Founders warned us to stay educated and vigilant. We did not. Thus, a great deal of the Constitution is largely ignored.

If it was not ignored, I venture to say upwards of 98% of the laws that have been written would be null and void.

Nothing ever remains the same. Countries rise and when too many of their populace become stupid and lazy, they fall. The Constitution, regardless of its imperfections, and the people who tirelessly demanded that their government adhere to it, kept it alive enough for quite a few generations to be raised in quite a bit of freedom. Sadly, I'm not sure how long the last vestiges will hold out.

But, one thing I know for sure. Until the nature of man changes and there is no longer greed for money and power, a LA LA land of anarcho-capitalism will never be possible.

A Son of Liberty
10-20-2017, 05:06 AM
We were to be a nation of laws; not men. Where the rights of the minority, or one, were protected against the force of the majority. The Constitution was written to bind down the federal government to just a very few functions. While the majority of any laws were to be local, while most were from self-governing.

Our Founders warned us to stay educated and vigilant. We did not. Thus, a great deal of the Constitution is largely ignored.

If it was not ignored, I venture to say upwards of 98% of the laws that have been written would be null and void.

Nothing ever remains the same. Countries rise and when too many of their populace become stupid and lazy, they fall. The Constitution, regardless of its imperfections, and the people who tirelessly demanded that their government adhere to it, kept it alive enough for quite a few generations to be raised in quite a bit of freedom. Sadly, I'm not sure how long the last vestiges will hold out.

But, one thing I know for sure. Until the nature of man changes and there is no longer greed for money and power, a LA LA land of anarcho-capitalism will never be possible.

lol, everything you wrote before that last paragraph was literally an eulogy to minarchism, yet you assert that statelessness is "la-la land where the nature of man needs to change!" :LOL:!

Seriously, how do you miss that?

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 05:08 AM
lol, everything you wrote before that last paragraph was literally an eulogy to minarchism, yet you assert that statelessness is "la-la land where the nature of man needs to change!" :LOL:!

Seriously, how do you miss that?

I am pro-Constitution. Ron Paul is too.

Sad that you aren't.

And thank you for bolding what I wrote about anarchy. As much as you hate it, it is reality.

A Son of Liberty
10-20-2017, 05:12 AM
I am pro-Constitution. Ron Paul is too.

Sad that you aren't.

And thank you for bolding what I wrote about anarchy. As much as you hate it, it is reality.

EVERYTHING YOU SAID BEFORE THAT PARAGRAPH DESTROYS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

Jeezus. How are you so blind to this?

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 05:13 AM
EVERYTHING YOU SAID BEFORE THAT PARAGRAPH DESTROYS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

Jeezus. How are you so blind to this?

How so?

A Son of Liberty
10-20-2017, 05:14 AM
How so?

Is the American State currently governed by the Constitution?

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 05:14 AM
Perhaps you were thinking that any form of government, or even anarchy, lasts forever? Especially when the populace become lazy idiots.

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 05:15 AM
Is the American State currently governed by the Constitution?

Are you thinking it has 0 effect at all?

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 05:16 AM
The problem isn't the Constitution. It's the idiotic, lazy populace. Go back and read what I wrote.

A Son of Liberty
10-20-2017, 05:21 AM
Perhaps you were thinking that any form of government, or even anarchy, lasts forever? Especially when the populace become lazy idiots.

So, your answer is 'no', then.

Then what good is the Constitution? If the governing document - the document which says what the State may and may not do - of the American State cannot contain the State, it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

So what are we supposed to do? Pretend that every several decades (if even that long, when you actually look at the historical record) that we can inaugurate a State - an entity with ultimate authority over the human beings living within it's physical territory - and try, try, TRY to keep it within the paper box we build for it? WHAT A LEGACY TO PASS TO OUR CHILDREN! :LOL:

Didn't you read Shelley's Frankenstein? That's what happens when you mess with Nature.

AT LEAST statelessness aligns with the nature of humanity - that there is no objective standard by which one or some subset of man may rule over other men.

A Son of Liberty
10-20-2017, 05:21 AM
The problem isn't the Constitution. It's the idiotic, lazy populace. Go back and read what I wrote.

:lol: Well what the F GOOD IS THAT!? :lol:

A Son of Liberty
10-20-2017, 05:22 AM
How are you going to keep "THE POPULACE" from subverting all the good you do when you inaugurate your "CONSTITUTION"?

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 05:39 AM
:lol: Well what the F GOOD IS THAT!? :lol:

Quite a few generations were raised with freedom.

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 05:39 AM
How are you going to keep "THE POPULACE" from subverting all the good you do when you inaugurate your "CONSTITUTION"?

MY Constitution? Are you not an American?

LibertyEagle
10-20-2017, 05:42 AM
So, your answer is 'no', then.

Then what good is the Constitution? If the governing document - the document which says what the State may and may not do - of the American State cannot contain the State, it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

So what are we supposed to do? Pretend that every several decades (if even that long, when you actually look at the historical record) that we can inaugurate a State - an entity with ultimate authority over the human beings living within it's physical territory - and try, try, TRY to keep it within the paper box we build for it? WHAT A LEGACY TO PASS TO OUR CHILDREN! :LOL:

Didn't you read Shelley's Frankenstein? That's what happens when you mess with Nature.

AT LEAST statelessness aligns with the nature of humanity - that there is no objective standard by which one or some subset of man may rule over other men.

If you knew what you were talking about, the Constitution isn't about ruling over men; its about binding down the federal government.

A Son of Liberty
10-20-2017, 06:06 AM
Quite a few generations were raised with freedom.

Which generations were that, exactly? The one that Founder John Adams imposed the Alien and Sedition Act upon?

"Freedom" is a gray area for you, isn't it?


MY Constitution? Are you not an American?

There's no such thing as an "American". There are human beings living under the imposition of the State of the United States of America.


If you knew what you were talking about, the Constitution isn't about ruling over men; its about binding down the federal government.

It's not about ruling over other men? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but does the Constitution not lay out the manner by which popular and representative voting will occur, and the terms by which the assembled government may, you know, GOVERN?