Anarchist Stuff

[emp]

The question very quickly evolves into "What do we do with assholes?"

And keep in mind that a lot of the world's population is living in huge cities.
How do we deal with 8Million people?

What do we do with 1 Million of them not wanting to pay for anything they use?

::emp::

 

[p0ck3taces]

Where anarchists live...

Where the rest of us live...

 

[pfgannon]

The question very quickly evolves into "What do we do with assholes?"

And keep in mind that a lot of the world's population is living in huge cities.
How do we deal with 8Million people?

What do we do with 1 Million of them not wanting to pay for anything they use?

::emp::

It would depend on the product/service in question, but the simple answer is to not let them use it. If the cost to prevent freeloaders begins to exceed the value the service provides, then the owner(s) of that product/service has a tough decision to make. Freedom won't eliminate tough decisions from life any better than government will, but at least you're given the ability to decide for yourself.

I don't know what to do with assholes in every situation. I do, however, know what you shouldn't ever do with assholes, and that's give them power over people's lives. That's what you're advocating.

 

[emp]

No, I am not.

I am asking the question anyone will ask of a new form of government.

How will it work in case of adversity?
How will it protect my freedom? My business interests?
etc...

It is all fine and dandy to talk about cooperation or willing compliance with arbitration decisions when we are talking about a small road or an apple you pilfered from my tree.

Talk about an 8million people city filled with selfish egomaniacs and 3billion$ business deals and things might just look different than small town life.

::emp::

 

[erifdekciw]

What happens if you're in a small town and the mexican mafia decides it wants to use your town as their base. Also they want you pay them 20% of what ever you make and they won't kill you and your family. Who's going to stop them?

Do you expect your whole town to rise up and fight back? How many people would be willing to risk their lives and their families lives over 20%. Don't think that scenario could happen? It's happening right now in Mexico.

The government is so corrupt you could say there is no government presence in some places. Whole towns are under the influence of Mexican cartels. People who try and fight back get killed. If there was no Mexican government how long do you think it would take for cartels to take over mexico? Would happen pretty fast. Then what happens? The whole process starts over again, but instead of a somewhat democratic government, a dictatorship government is installed and Mexico turns into a big turf war over warring cartels.

The Anarchist idea is good in theory, But there will always be a group of people who want to control everyone else. Government is basically just a bigger version of a cartel. Your taxes pay for "protection".

 

[cziffra]

The question very quickly evolves into "What do we do with assholes?"

You ask these questions as if no anarchist had ever come up with a response to this kind of argument. Please take the time to do your research. There are entire books written about these topics. If you're going to argue against anarchy, at least do your homework. I could understand having read this material and coming up with an argument like, "I've read (insert book/author here) and understand his argument, but here's why it wouldn't work..." But none of you do that. You choose to argue from a state of ignorance.

I was skeptical when I was first introduced to these ideas, but I didn't just continue to regurgitate the propganda I learned in school when responding to the arguments. Instead, I took the time to learn. The more I learned, the more I realized how brainwashed I was. I see the same qualities in you, Kiopa_Matt, and the other forum socialists. You have a complete lack of curiosity. In your mind, what you know now is all there is to know. All of your arguments are based on that mentality. I used to be like that, so I know it's possible to change.

The book that converted me was The Market for Liberty. I had already been leaning in this direction for a while, but this book made everything click for me. A free PDF of the book can be downloaded here:

http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

It answers a lot of questions about how things might work without goverment.

 

[emp]

Let's stay in the real world. (I might have read more on this than you think, actually. I'll just not.. really? I need to do academic citing to bust balls on a forum? Arguing with people who post animated short clips from youtube? Kind of a double standard there, but I digress...)

So is there a nation right now where anarchy works?
If yes, how are they holding up?
If not, why do you think that is?

We can't even get this frigging forum to work without mods and bans and itrader ratings and whatnot...

::emp::

 

[pfgannon]

Let's stay in the real world. (I might have read more on this than you think, actually. I'll just not.. really? I need to do academic citing to bust balls on a forum? Arguing with people who post animated short clips from youtube? Kind of a double standard there, but I digress...)

So is there a nation right now where anarchy works?
If yes, how are they holding up?
If not, why do you think that is?

We can't even get this frigging forum to work without mods and bans and itrader ratings and whatnot...

::emp::

Fucking christ. I don't even know where to start.

If you've spent so much time researching this, you'd know there's a clear difference between voluntarily consenting to rules (as on this forum), and having rules forced on you by threat of violence/death. You'd also know that because something doesn't exist now, doesn't mean it never will.

Nobody is expecting a bibliography from you, but it would be nice for you to show that you've actually researched it beyond the absolute fucking basics, so you can stop asking these ubernovice, half step up "who would build the roads?" questions. You're not fooling any of the anarchists here.

 

[emp]

Seriously, I am not interested in the high brow academic utopian theories here.

Would we buy into these, communism would be great idea.

Well, I am out of high school now for a while and getting older means I am getting more interested in the "what can be done here, now" kinda stuff.

So answer, please.

And in the terms of the cute cartoon, I am an agent.

I hold the power and tools to dish out punishment, make up and enforce arbitrary rules, "send nasty letters".

To be honest, my appointment to this was not even really democratic. I blew a few dicks and voila!

And while you might have signed in voluntarily on this forum (built your house), you might not agree with everything that is going on, the engagement of the agents, the bullying of minorities, the new laws popping up all the time, etc...

Please keep in mind that not everything in life is voluntary. The place you are born in is not.

::emp::

 

[pfgannon]

Where anarchists live...

HERP


Where the rest of us live...

DERP

Where statist live....

 

[pfgannon]

Seriously, I am not interested in the high brow academic utopian theories here.

Would we buy into these, communism would be great idea.

Well, I am out of high school now for a while and getting older means I am getting more interested in the "what can be done here, now" kinda stuff.

So answer, please.

And in the terms of the cute cartoon, I am an agent.

I hold the power and tools to dish out punishment, make up and enforce arbitrary rules, "send nasty letters".

To be honest, my appointment to this was not even really democratic. I blew a few dicks and voila!

And while you might have signed in voluntarily on this forum (built your house), you might not agree with everything that is going on, the engagement of the agents, the bullying of minorities, the new laws popping up all the time, etc...

Please keep in mind that not everything in life is voluntary. The place you are born in is not.

::emp::

If you were sociopathic enough to run for public office, or something similar, you would have that power.

What you said is true of this forum, but when I disagree with the policies here, you and Jon don't come into my home and break my legs.

Obviously not everything is voluntary, like eating and sleeping, but it's your next sentence that interests me. What exactly are you trying to imply? Being born is involuntary, therefore nothing should be expected to be voluntary? I really am curious what your point is here.

"Seriously, I am not interested in the high brow academic utopian theories here."
So there it is. You haven't studied it. Stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[emp]

"Seriously, I am not interested in the high brow academic utopian theories here."
So there it is. You haven't studied it. Stop wasting everyone's time.

That is a non-sequitur, and you know it.

I put up this forum as an example, as this is a sandbox. Actually most things on the internet are. Here we can do everything we want. New forms of government? Of discussion? Of cooperation? Go ahead. Let's do this, let's try.

So what do we do?

We appoint agents, embue them with special powers. Frameworks are set up, piling rule upon rule. We even see borders online, special requirements to enter restricted areas, etc...

All this happens as soon as the stakes get higher.

Why do we have mods?

One reason is to ban the spammers who simply exist and disrupt the place because there is money to be had.

Another reason is to pass judgement on interactions in the community.

Now, in an ideal world, a mod would be the arbitrator, listening to each side patiently, passing wise judgement or gathering a jury of peers.

Actually, it should be a random forum person, not an appointed mod.

But really? - bam, gone.

Yet another reason is to assure that business goes smoothly. Business interests of Jon (No selling out of BST) and others (I'll try to protect your BST thread) are being served.

It is not that I did not study, but I do not believe in the Anarchist ideal. And it has so far (there is hope, right?) not proven to be a solution to anything, given the human condition.

::emp::

 

[pfgannon]

That is a non-sequitur, and you know it.

I put up this forum as an example, as this is a sandbox. Actually most things on the internet are. Here we can do everything we want. New forms of government? Of discussion? Of cooperation? Go ahead. Let's do this, let's try.

So what do we do?

We appoint agents, embue them with special powers. Frameworks are set up, piling rule upon rule. We even see borders online, special requirements to enter restricted areas, etc...

All this happens as soon as the stakes get higher.

Why do we have mods?

One reason is to ban the spammers who simply exist and disrupt the place because there is money to be had.

Another reason is to pass judgement on interactions in the community.

Now, in an ideal world, a mod would be the arbitrator, listening to each side patiently, passing wise judgement or gathering a jury of peers.

Actually, it should be a random forum person, not an appointed mod.

But really? - bam, gone.

Yet another reason is to assure that business goes smoothly. Business interests of Jon (No selling out of BST) and others (I'll try to protect your BST thread) are being served.

It is not that I did not study, but I do not believe in the Anarchist ideal. And it has so far (there is hope, right?) not proven to be a solution to anything, given the human condition.

::emp::

You forum sandbox analogy falls apart from the start because it doesn't include the violent force in the equation.

Why aren't all the anarchists here demanding the immediate dismantling of Wickedfire? Because it belongs to Jon, and he can do what he wants with it. If you own it, slap as many rules and regulations on it as you want. If you think an arbitrator is the best way to resolve disputes in YOUR community, go for it, but if given the opportunity to decide how disputes are handled, dispute resolution will be handled in a number of simple and highly complex ways.

Anarchy hasn't solved anything? Non-violent cooperation solves nearly everything. It's government that can't solve anything. It may also be time for you to readdress what you consider human nature.

Government can't solve anything:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs"]The Broken Window Fallacy - YouTube[/ame]

Human Nature:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPCsbudHoWw"]Genes, Nature, Nurture and The Freedom of Self-Knowledge (HD) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[crackp0t]

Who said no structure? We're simply talking about a non-violent structure, or are you saying that all structure has to be violent, and there can be no cooperative organization?

I cannot understand why you always promote a false dichotomy of anarchy = absence of everything. Everything government does, individuals can do cooperatively in a private property society. Law originated in the private sector, not the government sector.

Before I understood what Anarchy really was I had the same misconception. That's a misconception that most people have unfortunately.

 

[crackp0t]

OK, so the two solutions you propose are:

a) remove his vehicle from he road if he uses the road
b) Don't maintain his section of the road or making it / leaving it unusable in the winter

how is either of these non-violent?

Well, maybe not violent as in "I'll punch your face in" but still using passive aggressive tactics, ransom, denying access to, etc..

So who is going to remove his vehicle? By which means? What if he does not agree to this?

How is not removing the snow / denying access non-violent?

Do you people really believe business is not going to work without contracts? And you do know that each contract has the implicit threat of force / legal action behind it, right?

::emp::

Also: Thanks for insulting me. Always makes me feel great. I called you deluded, you called me an asshole. Nice.

I've done a lot of business on a hand shake and have had the same results as I've had with a contract. If a mans word isn't good it doesn't matter how many contracts you have with him, because he'll have things structured in a way so it doesn't matter if he breaks them.

 

[MSTeacher]

Please take the time to do your research. There are entire books written about these topics. If you're going to argue against anarchy, at least do your homework. I could understand having read this material and coming up with an argument like, "I've read (insert book/author here) and understand his argument, but here's why it wouldn't work..." But none of you do that. You choose to argue from a state of ignorance.

1. A person testing the validity or use of another's perspective is not committing a sin doing so from a state of ignorance. Note that it is quite often anarchists who unilaterally insert their ideas into discussion. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, so there should be nothing wrong with others firing back before going to the library.

Not to mention that unfortunately many anarchists seem to fancy themselves first rate revisionist historians, seemingly to justify their proposals with a restructuring of the past, and often commit the very same sin toward which your complaint is addressed in different contexts.

2. A lot of the so-called argument that is pointed at proponents of anarchy is actually skeptical inquiry and not argument. Unfortunately anarchists seem to be overly thenthitive when it comes to talking about their ideas and often miss this distinction, to their detriment.

3. A lot of the actual argument against anarchy is valid and not addressed directly, points not taken, and concessions not made. Not sure why but anarchists are in general offputtingly reluctant to admit weaknesses in their ideas.

4. Anarchy is not that difficult to understand and deconstruct. And yes, there are simple questions that I see asked that could be answered without a post on Wickedfire. If you really cared about your message you'd patiently answer and not tell people to go read eclectic anarchist literature or they're just ignorant.

That said I don't need to read a bunch of anarchist material to argue effectively against it or constructively criticize proponents of it. It's not new and it's been effectively critiqued for a long, long time, just as anarchists have critiqued the state. Seemingly the main reason that the basic arguments surrounding anarchy are not household items is because they are too marginal for most people to relate to them in any meaningful way.

I see the same qualities in you, Kiopa_Matt, and the other forum socialists. You have a complete lack of curiosity. In your mind, what you know now is all there is to know. All of your arguments are based on that mentality.

Not so much bro.

I do hope your own journey to anarchy did not obscure the path behind you so much that you can no longer see it.

Remember there is a big, big difference between statists who support government on their own terms and statists who support government because they were brainwashed to. I support government because I study history on my own terms, not because my middle school history teacher told me FDR was Superman.

good luck bros

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Do you believe the only reason blacks are no longer slaves is because someone made a law about it?

I'm not going to speculate either, because you'll just call me on it. I will say the power and force of the government's hand is what caused slavery to swiftly end when it did though.

But it was the government which prevented women from voting, and in the US, institutionalized slavery through the Fugitive Slave Act.

So you're insuiniating if there was no US government, private plantation owners wouldn't have brought slaves over from Africa to work their land?

Organized religion is a lot weaker than it has ever been in history.

Claims to be the fastest-growing religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently, several major religions are still growing faster than the population, so I'd say we're not in danger of seeing organized religion disappear anytime soon.

How did technology free the slaves in the US? How did technology get women the vote?

It didn't. We grew up. We're still growing up.

As far as more sophisticated stealing, you do realize that the poorest American or Canadian enjoys a higher standard of living than Kings did 250 years ago?

Yes, and I also believe ripping down all government institutions will revert us back 100+ years.

It's a pretty damn silly argument for you to claim that we have the same basic morality we did pre-language and pre-technology as cavemen.

I think we have the same raw drive, ambition, and greed that we did 50,000 years ago, yes. It was only 40 years ago when Pol Pot was out and about, murdering millions of his fellow citizens to create an agrarian utopia. Do you really believe we've grown up that much since then? Not likely. Wasn't very long ago when 100,000+ gung-ho soldiers armed to the teeth went into Iraq, with millions more young men and women more than happy to follow them in if asked to.

What on earth would make you believe we're capable of anarchy, the NAP, and world peace?

Everything government does, individuals can do cooperatively in a private property society.

No, they can't. Individuals can't fend off the Russian military, for an example. Individuals would have a tough time organizing, and sending in 1000s of tonnes of food and supplies into areas devastated by a natural disaster, for another example. Individuals would have a difficult time protecting the coasts where you get your fish supply from unwanted harvesters, as another example.

As far as the riots, I don't see how people rioting substantiates anything.

That we're not capable of anarchy, the NAP, and world peace yet.

I'll say it again, and not to be insulting, although your posts are terrible, and generally a waste of time to reply to.

Then don't reply to them. You know, this reminds me when I went on a 3 week motorbike trip through Newfoundland years ago. There's loads of villages up there that are basically anarchy, and don't have a single police officer. Friendliest people you'll ever meet too. Not very worldly, but very friendly.

So yes, anarchy can work great in small 300 person villages, and it does. How the hell do you expect to replicate that in places like Los Angeles, Beijing, Tokyo, Tel Aviv, Berlin, Toronto, and New York though? Not happening. Not when you have millions of people, hundreds of cultures, and thousands of belief sets all living in close proximity.

 

[-joe-]

I'm almost sold on the idea on Anarchy, but there's one thing I still struggle with. Are there any good videos/articles on it?

How do you deal with violent criminals who won't respond to a Merchant Law system? If it's totally non-violent, you can't get a team of people to arrest them, but if you don't, and they're totally nuts, they'll just kill again (unless, of course, you just wait until someone being attacked by them shoots them, but that seems a bit flawed)

 

[pinchyfingers]

I'm almost sold on the idea on Anarchy, but there's one thing I still struggle with. Are there any good videos/articles on it?

How do you deal with violent criminals who won't respond to a Merchant Law system? If it's totally non-violent, you can't get a team of people to arrest them, but if you don't, and they're totally nuts, they'll just kill again (unless, of course, you just wait until someone being attacked by them shoots them, but that seems a bit flawed)

Hopefully someone can provide some resources to better answer your question. My initial thought on this problem is that it is handled through voluntary associations. Where will a violent criminal live, eat, and acquire manufactured goods? It's not practical to steal everything as a way of life. Dangerous criminals would be forced to live outside of society because no one will volunteer to interact with them, and without the ability to buy land, seeds, machinery, water, etc. they will die.

Also, I would not dismiss violence as an answer to this problem. Imagine your community if no one feared legal penalties for protecting their property. Now imagine someone robbing houses. How many houses could they rob?

 

[mattseh]

Hopefully someone can provide some resources to better answer your question. My initial thought on this problem is that it is handled through voluntary associations. Where will a violent criminal live, eat, and acquire manufactured goods? It's not practical to steal everything as a way of life. Dangerous criminals would be forced to live outside of society because no one will volunteer to interact with them, and without the ability to buy land, seeds, machinery, water, etc. they will die.

I think that the problem with this is that the world isn't a small town, someone can commit a crime, move 100 miles, spend the proceeds of that crime, then move to a location and commit more crime a roving bandit if you will.

The only potential solution that I can think of is an "Interpol" that shares information on criminals, but I think that may have problems scaling. Technology to the rescue?