Why do so many people object to, or at least, shy away from discussions about anarchy as an alternative to the immorality of "states".
Patterns arise in every state: they achieve the subjugation of the masses under the control of the rich and powerful. War is routine. Tyranny runs rampant. Minorities are oppressed. Men are conscripted and enslaved. Justice is perverted, and people live under constant threat that their security will be undermined. And so, we continue on in our incredibly destructive course.
Yet, the second a person suggests that we might dispose of the state, he is subjected to ridicule, derision, or even violence. So it seems that the true reactionary position is the one that is averse to considering what alternatives might be available.
This situation would be funny if it were not so sad. Objectors ask “What are we to do about murderers? Let them run the streets? Now, this is a curious question, because states are themselves murderers, only they accomplish their killings by the millions rather than individually. And we not only let them run our streets, but we let them patrol them. For it seems to me that men have been duped. The would be ruler says, “Men are very evil, and they will try to hurt you, so you need me to protect you. But if men are so evil, then how can we trust men to rule over us? And how can we trust men to follow whatever rules are set up anyway?
Most private individuals I know did not steal, nor rape, nor plunder, kill or defraud. Nor would they have done those things even if they had been legal. They needed no law to inform them of right and wrong; nor, I trust, did you. On the other hand, how many men did things that they otherwise would not have done, merely because the state said that it was okay? Would hundreds of thousands of young men, merely on their own initiative, have armed themselves to the teeth and journeyed to Iraq to torture, kill, and terrorize? No, to accomplish that great evil they needed a state to tell them that it was alright to do what they would otherwise find repugnant.
Throughout the history of mankind one fact is quite evident: that by far the single most common aggressor against the rights of mankind is, and always will be, states. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson expressed the concept that states exist for the purpose of securing our rights. Yet, what a misguided notion! To see how misguided this notion is, one merely needs to read the so-called Bill of Rights to the Constitution. This document attempts to secure for all Americans the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to bear arms, security against having the military quartered in our homes, security against unreasonable searches and seizures, and security against unfair judicial proceedings. But who is it that threatens these rights if it is not states? The argument is, therefore, circular: We need a state to secure our rights, but those rights are only threatened by the state.
What anarchists object to is being forced to adhere to an organization to which we have not given consent, from which we may not withdraw if it violates our conscience, and which provides its so called “services in a coercive rather than a voluntary manner. At the heart of the anarchist argument is a desire to uphold peace, morality, and freedom in a spirit of cooperation. Anarchists acknowledge a simple truth: that any relationship that is not consensual can only result in further violence; but that a relationship among a group of people that recognizes the value of each individual, and acknowledges the individual's ultimate ability to choose whether to continue that relationship, is based on the greatest bonds of fraternity. This, and not bomb-throwing, is the legacy of anarchism.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
Anarchists are usually people with nothing to loose to begin with.
While they are out demonstrating and trying to start revolutions, their moms and dads are at home working their buts off to pay for their college education.
It is easier to fight the establishment and denounce any responsibility than it is to accept responsibility and help make society a better place.
Any idiot can knock down a building, but it takes skill to build one.
The problem with anarchist is that they offer no solution, what replaces the void they have left once they tear apart society?? History indicates the gap gets filled with some military dictatorship.
While they are out demonstrating and trying to start revolutions, their moms and dads are at home working their buts off to pay for their college education.
It is easier to fight the establishment and denounce any responsibility than it is to accept responsibility and help make society a better place.
Any idiot can knock down a building, but it takes skill to build one.
The problem with anarchist is that they offer no solution, what replaces the void they have left once they tear apart society?? History indicates the gap gets filled with some military dictatorship.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
mikeinie;830169 wrote:
The problem with anarchist is that they offer no solution, what replaces the void they have left once they tear apart society?? History indicates the gap gets filled with some military dictatorship.
Your preconceived notions have nothing to do with reality. If you'd have taken the time to read my previous post regarding The Science Of Morality (in another thread) and the stabilizing factor of Market Anarchism (in Why does economic development matter?) you might have gotten a clue. But you didn't and you don't.
I liken the current situation with the immorality of the "state" with the immorality of slavery. When it was proposed that slavery in the US be abolished did anyone say "the abolition of slavery should be conditional upon the provision of jobs for every freed slave". Or that "the void created on plantations must be addressed before abolishing slavery". NO they did not! Slavery was recognized as a moral wrong and needed to be abolished. States routinely initiate force, murder millions, and steal from their citizens. How much immorality is too much? When do the good citizens of countries begin to examine alternatives to the state? I say now.
The problem with anarchist is that they offer no solution, what replaces the void they have left once they tear apart society?? History indicates the gap gets filled with some military dictatorship.
Your preconceived notions have nothing to do with reality. If you'd have taken the time to read my previous post regarding The Science Of Morality (in another thread) and the stabilizing factor of Market Anarchism (in Why does economic development matter?) you might have gotten a clue. But you didn't and you don't.
I liken the current situation with the immorality of the "state" with the immorality of slavery. When it was proposed that slavery in the US be abolished did anyone say "the abolition of slavery should be conditional upon the provision of jobs for every freed slave". Or that "the void created on plantations must be addressed before abolishing slavery". NO they did not! Slavery was recognized as a moral wrong and needed to be abolished. States routinely initiate force, murder millions, and steal from their citizens. How much immorality is too much? When do the good citizens of countries begin to examine alternatives to the state? I say now.
-
Richard Bell
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Winston Churchill
"We went to the Phillie Pizza Company
And ordered some hot tea
The waitress said "Well no
We only have it iced"
So we jumped up on the table
And shouted "Anarchy"
Dead Milkmen, Punk Rock Girl
There ya go... the whole debate pithily summed up by the greatest minds of the twentieth century.
Why do so many people object to, or at least, shy away from discussions about anarchy as an alternative to the immorality of "states".
Same reason we don't have debates about the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. We're adults.
Winston Churchill
"We went to the Phillie Pizza Company
And ordered some hot tea
The waitress said "Well no
We only have it iced"
So we jumped up on the table
And shouted "Anarchy"
Dead Milkmen, Punk Rock Girl
There ya go... the whole debate pithily summed up by the greatest minds of the twentieth century.
Why do so many people object to, or at least, shy away from discussions about anarchy as an alternative to the immorality of "states".
Same reason we don't have debates about the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. We're adults.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
jdx;830617 wrote: Your preconceived notions have nothing to do with reality. If you'd have taken the time to read my previous post regarding The Science Of Morality (in another thread) and the stabilizing factor of Market Anarchism (in Why does economic development matter?) you might have gotten a clue. But you didn't and you don't.
.
I did not know that there was a pre-requisite to replying to this post that required going through your other posts first prior to replying, and you made no reference within this post that it was require to read your other posts first.
Good example of anarchy, all over the fk’n place.
.
I did not know that there was a pre-requisite to replying to this post that required going through your other posts first prior to replying, and you made no reference within this post that it was require to read your other posts first.
Good example of anarchy, all over the fk’n place.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
mikeinie;830733 wrote: I did not know that there was a pre-requisite to replying to this post that required going through your other posts first prior to replying, and you made no reference within this post that it was require to read your other posts first.
Good example of anarchy, all over the fk’n place.
My point was and still is anarchy is merely the logical application of the moral premise that the initiation of the use of force is wrong.
Nowhere in this thread do I project the image you portrayed of an anarchist. And, in my other posts I do begin to offer solutions. You have no obligation to read anything unless you have an interest in learning the truth.
Good example of anarchy, all over the fk’n place.
My point was and still is anarchy is merely the logical application of the moral premise that the initiation of the use of force is wrong.
Nowhere in this thread do I project the image you portrayed of an anarchist. And, in my other posts I do begin to offer solutions. You have no obligation to read anything unless you have an interest in learning the truth.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
jdx;831000 wrote: My point was and still is anarchy is merely the logical application of the moral premise that the initiation of the use of force is wrong.
Nowhere in this thread do I project the image you portrayed of an anarchist. And, in my other posts I do begin to offer solutions. You have no obligation to read anything unless you have an interest in learning the truth.
And no-one has any obligation to read your posts at all if they're going to be insulted.
Posts such as "Your preconceived notions have nothing to do with reality. ............. you might have gotten a clue. But you didn't and you don't." do nothing to advancing your cause or encourage people to read or take your posts seriously.
Nothing to do with having an interest in learning the truth, just having an interest in common courtesy.
Nowhere in this thread do I project the image you portrayed of an anarchist. And, in my other posts I do begin to offer solutions. You have no obligation to read anything unless you have an interest in learning the truth.
And no-one has any obligation to read your posts at all if they're going to be insulted.
Posts such as "Your preconceived notions have nothing to do with reality. ............. you might have gotten a clue. But you didn't and you don't." do nothing to advancing your cause or encourage people to read or take your posts seriously.
Nothing to do with having an interest in learning the truth, just having an interest in common courtesy.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
Bryn Mawr;831025 wrote: And no-one has any obligation to read your posts at all if they're going to be insulted.
Posts such as "Your preconceived notions have nothing to do with reality. ............. you might have gotten a clue. But you didn't and you don't." do nothing to advancing your cause or encourage people to read or take your posts seriously.
Nothing to do with having an interest in learning the truth, just having an interest in common courtesy.
If you need an excuse to remain unaware of reality, that's as good as any.
No one in this forum has chosen to discuss the facts, or disagreed with any assertions I've made against the state. If everyone agrees that the state is an evil entity then there should be a willingness to discuss alternatives.
Posts such as "Your preconceived notions have nothing to do with reality. ............. you might have gotten a clue. But you didn't and you don't." do nothing to advancing your cause or encourage people to read or take your posts seriously.
Nothing to do with having an interest in learning the truth, just having an interest in common courtesy.
If you need an excuse to remain unaware of reality, that's as good as any.
No one in this forum has chosen to discuss the facts, or disagreed with any assertions I've made against the state. If everyone agrees that the state is an evil entity then there should be a willingness to discuss alternatives.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
Are HUMANS end of story. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life? [/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
jdx;831050 wrote: If you need an excuse to remain unaware of reality, that's as good as any.
No one in this forum has chosen to discuss the facts, or disagreed with any assertions I've made against the state. If everyone agrees that the state is an evil entity then there should be a willingness to discuss alternatives.
:yh_rotfl
No one is likely to discuss anything with you given your attitude.
No one in this forum has chosen to discuss the facts, or disagreed with any assertions I've made against the state. If everyone agrees that the state is an evil entity then there should be a willingness to discuss alternatives.
:yh_rotfl
No one is likely to discuss anything with you given your attitude.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
CARLA;831056 wrote: Are HUMANS end of story. :rolleyes:
The end is not in sight.
The end is not in sight.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
Bryn Mawr;831086 wrote: :yh_rotfl
No one is likely to discuss anything with you given your attitude.
That sounds like an excuse for not being up to discussing relevant facts.
No one is likely to discuss anything with you given your attitude.
That sounds like an excuse for not being up to discussing relevant facts.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
jdx;831000 wrote: My point was and still is anarchy is merely the logical application of the moral premise that the initiation of the use of force is wrong.
Nowhere in this thread do I project the image you portrayed of an anarchist. And, in my other posts I do begin to offer solutions. You have no obligation to read anything unless you have an interest in learning the truth.
I always believe that before you dig into the detail, always take a step back and look at the big picture first to ensure you are not being sucked down a black whole.
I went to read your other posts and here are some facts:
In three posts, excluding replies, you wrote 6,742 words.
You have received responses from only 5 people (including myself) with the total word count being 528 words.
I would love to engage in debate with you, but the stats indicate that it would not have the time.
Here are some famous sayings to consider:
‘Howling at the Moon’
‘Barking Up a Tree’
‘A storm in a Tea Cup’
‘Much to do about Nothing’
Good luck with your revolution
Nowhere in this thread do I project the image you portrayed of an anarchist. And, in my other posts I do begin to offer solutions. You have no obligation to read anything unless you have an interest in learning the truth.
I always believe that before you dig into the detail, always take a step back and look at the big picture first to ensure you are not being sucked down a black whole.
I went to read your other posts and here are some facts:
In three posts, excluding replies, you wrote 6,742 words.
You have received responses from only 5 people (including myself) with the total word count being 528 words.
I would love to engage in debate with you, but the stats indicate that it would not have the time.
Here are some famous sayings to consider:
‘Howling at the Moon’
‘Barking Up a Tree’
‘A storm in a Tea Cup’
‘Much to do about Nothing’
Good luck with your revolution
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
mikeinie;831380 wrote:
I would love to engage in debate with you, but the stats indicate that it would not have the time.
You haven't made one relevant statement in this thread. You just make excuses indicating a complete unawareness of the subject.
Any idiot can stumble into a conversation with erroneous preconceived notions. But it takes a special kind of wuss to whine like a baby about being offended when he's asked to educate himself before spouting off.
I would love to engage in debate with you, but the stats indicate that it would not have the time.
You haven't made one relevant statement in this thread. You just make excuses indicating a complete unawareness of the subject.
Any idiot can stumble into a conversation with erroneous preconceived notions. But it takes a special kind of wuss to whine like a baby about being offended when he's asked to educate himself before spouting off.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
jdx;830165 wrote: Yet, the second a person suggests that we might dispose of the state, he is subjected to ridicule, derision, or even violence. So it seems that the true reactionary position is the one that is averse to considering what alternatives might be available.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of anarchy in theory... I actually like aspects of both anarchy and socialism.
But IMO we place too much emphasis (or hope) on political systems. Even bad ideas will work fine with the right mix of people, good ideas will fail with another group of people. What our problems come down to is people. Changing the labels, or deregulating things will not change that aspect of our social problems one bit.
I'd argue that what any political system is, at bottom, is anarchy ... the window dressings of another type of system are layered on top of it. If you don't like the current system, there's no reason to assume that removing structure will improve our conditions though, since the same people responsible for the problems will still be there, and will run amok with even less restriction.
The important thing to keep in mind though, in debate, is to disagree without being disagreeable. The warlike way you are defending anarchy is actually doing more harm to the idea than good
There's nothing wrong with the idea of anarchy in theory... I actually like aspects of both anarchy and socialism.
But IMO we place too much emphasis (or hope) on political systems. Even bad ideas will work fine with the right mix of people, good ideas will fail with another group of people. What our problems come down to is people. Changing the labels, or deregulating things will not change that aspect of our social problems one bit.
I'd argue that what any political system is, at bottom, is anarchy ... the window dressings of another type of system are layered on top of it. If you don't like the current system, there's no reason to assume that removing structure will improve our conditions though, since the same people responsible for the problems will still be there, and will run amok with even less restriction.
The important thing to keep in mind though, in debate, is to disagree without being disagreeable. The warlike way you are defending anarchy is actually doing more harm to the idea than good
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
yaaarrrgg;831824 wrote: There's nothing wrong with the idea of anarchy in theory... I actually like aspects of both anarchy and socialism.
But IMO we place too much emphasis (or hope) on political systems. Even bad ideas will work fine with the right mix of people, good ideas will fail with another group of people. What our problems come down to is people. Changing the labels, or deregulating things will not change that aspect of our social problems one bit.
The actual root cause of most societal problems is the state. Without the power to control the actions of others at the point of a gun, people are basically moral and productive. Once individuals are given the power to control others and are told it's the right thing to do, they begin doing things they wouln't even consider doing otherwise: Like the example in my initial post of this thread, of soldiers told by the state that it's okay to murder, torture and terrorize.
yaaarrrgg;831824 wrote: I'd argue that what any political system is, at bottom, is anarchy ... the window dressings of another type of system are layered on top of it. If you don't like the current system, there's no reason to assume that removing structure will improve our conditions though, since the same people responsible for the problems will still be there, and will run amok with even less restriction.
Anarchy is a stateless society where the inition of force is deem wrong and not tolerated. This is where Dispute Resolution Organizations enter society to make it very difficult for criminal minded people to prosper or even exist. The theory behind DROs is posted in the thread "Why does economic development matter?"
yaaarrrgg;831824 wrote: The important thing to keep in mind though, in debate, is to disagree without being disagreeable. The warlike way you are defending anarchy is actually doing more harm to the idea than good
Warlike infers meaning someone harm. That term doesn't fit my actions or words. I am however always ready to correct those who chose to stereotype anarchists in a dishonest way.
The anarchists I've had contact with all object to the initiation of force and respect man's freedom of choice.
But IMO we place too much emphasis (or hope) on political systems. Even bad ideas will work fine with the right mix of people, good ideas will fail with another group of people. What our problems come down to is people. Changing the labels, or deregulating things will not change that aspect of our social problems one bit.
The actual root cause of most societal problems is the state. Without the power to control the actions of others at the point of a gun, people are basically moral and productive. Once individuals are given the power to control others and are told it's the right thing to do, they begin doing things they wouln't even consider doing otherwise: Like the example in my initial post of this thread, of soldiers told by the state that it's okay to murder, torture and terrorize.
yaaarrrgg;831824 wrote: I'd argue that what any political system is, at bottom, is anarchy ... the window dressings of another type of system are layered on top of it. If you don't like the current system, there's no reason to assume that removing structure will improve our conditions though, since the same people responsible for the problems will still be there, and will run amok with even less restriction.
Anarchy is a stateless society where the inition of force is deem wrong and not tolerated. This is where Dispute Resolution Organizations enter society to make it very difficult for criminal minded people to prosper or even exist. The theory behind DROs is posted in the thread "Why does economic development matter?"
yaaarrrgg;831824 wrote: The important thing to keep in mind though, in debate, is to disagree without being disagreeable. The warlike way you are defending anarchy is actually doing more harm to the idea than good
Warlike infers meaning someone harm. That term doesn't fit my actions or words. I am however always ready to correct those who chose to stereotype anarchists in a dishonest way.
The anarchists I've had contact with all object to the initiation of force and respect man's freedom of choice.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
jdx;832410 wrote: The actual root cause of most societal problems is the state. Without the power to control the actions of others at the point of a gun, people are basically moral and productive. Once individuals are given the power to control others and are told it's the right thing to do, they begin doing things they wouln't even consider doing otherwise: Like the example in my initial post of this thread, of soldiers told by the state that it's okay to murder, torture and terrorize.
But who would keep people from organizing groups to support each other against others with whom they disagree?
What I'm saying is it's a really cool theory, but would require everyone to agree that anarchy is the way to go, which creates a de facto set of laws all must adhere to, which brings us right back to what we're trying to rid ourselves of.
Even in the smallest of groups, like my classroom of 6-10 kids, when two individuals disagree about something, anything, often each will look for someone to support their stance. Lines are quickly drawn between two groups, or three if anyone chooses to remain neutral. Consensus must be reached, which likely leaves at least one or two feeling put upon, or a fight results to decide a winner. Take this microcosm to a landmass filled with several hundred million people, and I don't see how anarchy could possibly survive in anything remotely like its original form.
But who would keep people from organizing groups to support each other against others with whom they disagree?
What I'm saying is it's a really cool theory, but would require everyone to agree that anarchy is the way to go, which creates a de facto set of laws all must adhere to, which brings us right back to what we're trying to rid ourselves of.
Even in the smallest of groups, like my classroom of 6-10 kids, when two individuals disagree about something, anything, often each will look for someone to support their stance. Lines are quickly drawn between two groups, or three if anyone chooses to remain neutral. Consensus must be reached, which likely leaves at least one or two feeling put upon, or a fight results to decide a winner. Take this microcosm to a landmass filled with several hundred million people, and I don't see how anarchy could possibly survive in anything remotely like its original form.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
jdx;832410 wrote:
Anarchy is a stateless society where the inition of force is deem wrong and not tolerated. This is where Dispute Resolution Organizations enter society to make it very difficult for criminal minded people to prosper or even exist. The theory behind DROs is posted in the thread "Why does economic development matter?"
What I mean is that the state does not have any reality, other than what we give to it in our imagination. The state ... where is it? How much does it weigh? Is it real because people have guns, or because someone's written some words on paper, declaring its reality?
The people are the government ... you and I. The resulting system is what we've agreed upon for basic order (or mostly agree upon to continue to accept). We are real; "the state" is not.
Of course, I don't have any issues with changing the status quo. What I think anarchists should focus on though, is decentralization ... to split power and function into smaller units. Giving local governments and cities more power and responsibility.
To some degree that kind of change is appealing to me, but I worry though that the results may likewise be a bit disappointing. There's something to be said about there being strength in numbers. You can do some things with a large central government that are nearly impossible to coordinate with a hodge podge of small (person-sized?) governments. Sometimes those things we like, and sometimes we don't like.
IMO the optimal system will always contain some degree of two opposites, like centralization and decentralization, freedom and control, top-down and bottom-up control ... etc. Since it's a matter of balance, not necessarily one of extracting some part of the system we find intuitively appealing and applying it to the exclusion of balancing factors.
Anarchy is a stateless society where the inition of force is deem wrong and not tolerated. This is where Dispute Resolution Organizations enter society to make it very difficult for criminal minded people to prosper or even exist. The theory behind DROs is posted in the thread "Why does economic development matter?"
What I mean is that the state does not have any reality, other than what we give to it in our imagination. The state ... where is it? How much does it weigh? Is it real because people have guns, or because someone's written some words on paper, declaring its reality?
The people are the government ... you and I. The resulting system is what we've agreed upon for basic order (or mostly agree upon to continue to accept). We are real; "the state" is not.
Of course, I don't have any issues with changing the status quo. What I think anarchists should focus on though, is decentralization ... to split power and function into smaller units. Giving local governments and cities more power and responsibility.
To some degree that kind of change is appealing to me, but I worry though that the results may likewise be a bit disappointing. There's something to be said about there being strength in numbers. You can do some things with a large central government that are nearly impossible to coordinate with a hodge podge of small (person-sized?) governments. Sometimes those things we like, and sometimes we don't like.
IMO the optimal system will always contain some degree of two opposites, like centralization and decentralization, freedom and control, top-down and bottom-up control ... etc. Since it's a matter of balance, not necessarily one of extracting some part of the system we find intuitively appealing and applying it to the exclusion of balancing factors.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
Accountable;832498 wrote: But who would keep people from organizing groups to support each other against others with whom they disagree?
What I'm saying is it's a really cool theory, but would require everyone to agree that anarchy is the way to go, which creates a de facto set of laws all must adhere to, which brings us right back to what we're trying to rid ourselves of.
Actually US governments today consist of de facto representatives operating under the color of law, meaning all so called laws are merely the opinions of legislators which are enforced as legitimate by corrupt court systems.
The only rule in an anarchal society is that the initiation of physical force or fraud is not allowed.
The stabilizing factor of anarchy is Dispute Desolution Organizations (DROs). Every business and individual would subscribe to the services of a DRO. They act as arbitrators, protection agencies, and insurers. I've posted the theory behind DROs here: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=8
What I'm saying is it's a really cool theory, but would require everyone to agree that anarchy is the way to go, which creates a de facto set of laws all must adhere to, which brings us right back to what we're trying to rid ourselves of.
Actually US governments today consist of de facto representatives operating under the color of law, meaning all so called laws are merely the opinions of legislators which are enforced as legitimate by corrupt court systems.
The only rule in an anarchal society is that the initiation of physical force or fraud is not allowed.
The stabilizing factor of anarchy is Dispute Desolution Organizations (DROs). Every business and individual would subscribe to the services of a DRO. They act as arbitrators, protection agencies, and insurers. I've posted the theory behind DROs here: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=8
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
jdx;832998 wrote: The stabilizing factor of anarchy is Dispute Desolution Organizations (DROs). Every business and individual would subscribe to the services of a DRO. They act as arbitrators, protection agencies, and insurers. I've posted the theory behind DROs here: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=8
Here's what I see:
These DRO's contain a conflict of interest that may grow over time: accepting money to render decisions. This naturally makes them inclined to tilt their policies, like any reasonable business, in the direction that generates the most revenue. What happens is that the DRO's that cater to the desires of the wealthiest clients, grow in power and overtake the DRO's that render income-neutral decisions.
Over time, a monopolizing trend will encourage consolidation of these organizations, making it more and more difficult for start-ups to survive in the face of some mega-corporation competitor DRO.
This is currently a problem with our DRO's (a.k.a legal system) ... in that wealthy defendents can commit violence and get away with it. Often a dispute is determined by who can hire the best legal team.
Here's what I see:
These DRO's contain a conflict of interest that may grow over time: accepting money to render decisions. This naturally makes them inclined to tilt their policies, like any reasonable business, in the direction that generates the most revenue. What happens is that the DRO's that cater to the desires of the wealthiest clients, grow in power and overtake the DRO's that render income-neutral decisions.
Over time, a monopolizing trend will encourage consolidation of these organizations, making it more and more difficult for start-ups to survive in the face of some mega-corporation competitor DRO.
This is currently a problem with our DRO's (a.k.a legal system) ... in that wealthy defendents can commit violence and get away with it. Often a dispute is determined by who can hire the best legal team.
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
yaaarrrgg;833083 wrote: Here's what I see:
These DRO's contain a conflict of interest that may grow over time: accepting money to render decisions. This naturally makes them inclined to tilt their policies, like any reasonable business, in the direction that generates the most revenue. What happens is that the DRO's that cater to the desires of the wealthiest clients, grow in power and overtake the DRO's that render income-neutral decisions.
Over time, a monopolizing trend will encourage consolidation of these organizations, making it more and more difficult for start-ups to survive in the face of some mega-corporation competitor DRO.
This is currently a problem with our DRO's (a.k.a legal system) ... in that wealthy defendents can commit violence and get away with it. Often a dispute is determined by who can hire the best legal team.
The following excerpt from the article on DRO's addresses your concern:
"The second problem is the fear that a particular DRO will grow in size and stature to the point where it takes on all the features and properties of a new State.
This is a superstitious fear, because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political State. While it is true that companies regularly use State coercion to enforce trading restrictions, high tariffs, cartels and other mercantilist tricks, surely this reinforces the danger of the State, not the inevitability of companies growing into States. All States destroy societies. No company has ever destroyed a society without the aid of the State. Thus the fear that a private company can somehow grow into a State is utterly unfounded in fact, experience, logic and history.
If society becomes frightened of a particular DRO, then it can simply stop doing business with it, which will cause it to collapse. If that DRO, as it collapses, somehow transforms itself from a group of secretaries, statisticians, accountants and contract lawyers into a ruthless domestic militia and successfully takes over society – and how unlikely is that! – then such a State will then be imposed on the general population. However, there are two problems even with this most unlikely scare scenario. First of all, if any DRO can take over society and impose itself as a new State, why only a DRO? Why not the Rotary Club? Why not a union? Why not the Mafia? The YMCA? The SPCA? Is society to then ban all groups with more than a hundred members? Clearly that is not a feasible solution, and so society must live with the risk of a brutal coup by ninja accountants as much as from any other group.
And, in the final analysis, if society is so terrified of a single group seizing a monopoly of political power, what does that say about the existing States? They have a monopoly of political power. If a DRO should never achieve this kind of control, why should existing States continue to wield theirs?"
These DRO's contain a conflict of interest that may grow over time: accepting money to render decisions. This naturally makes them inclined to tilt their policies, like any reasonable business, in the direction that generates the most revenue. What happens is that the DRO's that cater to the desires of the wealthiest clients, grow in power and overtake the DRO's that render income-neutral decisions.
Over time, a monopolizing trend will encourage consolidation of these organizations, making it more and more difficult for start-ups to survive in the face of some mega-corporation competitor DRO.
This is currently a problem with our DRO's (a.k.a legal system) ... in that wealthy defendents can commit violence and get away with it. Often a dispute is determined by who can hire the best legal team.
The following excerpt from the article on DRO's addresses your concern:
"The second problem is the fear that a particular DRO will grow in size and stature to the point where it takes on all the features and properties of a new State.
This is a superstitious fear, because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political State. While it is true that companies regularly use State coercion to enforce trading restrictions, high tariffs, cartels and other mercantilist tricks, surely this reinforces the danger of the State, not the inevitability of companies growing into States. All States destroy societies. No company has ever destroyed a society without the aid of the State. Thus the fear that a private company can somehow grow into a State is utterly unfounded in fact, experience, logic and history.
If society becomes frightened of a particular DRO, then it can simply stop doing business with it, which will cause it to collapse. If that DRO, as it collapses, somehow transforms itself from a group of secretaries, statisticians, accountants and contract lawyers into a ruthless domestic militia and successfully takes over society – and how unlikely is that! – then such a State will then be imposed on the general population. However, there are two problems even with this most unlikely scare scenario. First of all, if any DRO can take over society and impose itself as a new State, why only a DRO? Why not the Rotary Club? Why not a union? Why not the Mafia? The YMCA? The SPCA? Is society to then ban all groups with more than a hundred members? Clearly that is not a feasible solution, and so society must live with the risk of a brutal coup by ninja accountants as much as from any other group.
And, in the final analysis, if society is so terrified of a single group seizing a monopoly of political power, what does that say about the existing States? They have a monopoly of political power. If a DRO should never achieve this kind of control, why should existing States continue to wield theirs?"
States: The Greatest Threat To Human Life
yaaarrrgg;832918 wrote: What I mean is that the state does not have any reality, other than what we give to it in our imagination. The state ... where is it? How much does it weigh? Is it real because people have guns, or because someone's written some words on paper, declaring its reality?
We are in agreement here. The state only exists and has authority in the minds of people. When people stop believing in the state's power it will cease to exist.
yaaarrrgg;832918 wrote: The people are the government ... you and I. The resulting system is what we've agreed upon for basic order (or mostly agree upon to continue to accept). We are real; "the state" is not.
Right but the state does not give anyone the choice to accept or reject government, it is forced on everyone born within the borders of its country. No individual, to my knowledge, has ever signed a contract agreeing to waive all his natural rights in favor of acceptence of state approved privileges. Or to accept and be bound by all the rules of government.
yaaarrrgg;832918 wrote: Of course, I don't have any issues with changing the status quo. What I think anarchists should focus on though, is decentralization ... to split power and function into smaller units. Giving local governments and cities more power and responsibility.
No form of government is compatible with anarchy. Remember anarchy is the practical application of the moral premise that the iniation of force is wrong. All governments initiate force, grow by seeking more and more power to control, and become corrupt. Thus all governments are immoral ie: bad for mankind.
yaaarrrgg;832918 wrote: To some degree that kind of change is appealing to me, but I worry though that the results may likewise be a bit disappointing. There's something to be said about there being strength in numbers. You can do some things with a large central government that are nearly impossible to coordinate with a hodge podge of small (person-sized?) governments. Sometimes those things we like, and sometimes we don't like.
IMO the optimal system will always contain some degree of two opposites, like centralization and decentralization, freedom and control, top-down and bottom-up control ... etc. Since it's a matter of balance, not necessarily one of extracting some part of the system we find intuitively appealing and applying it to the exclusion of balancing factors.
Half way measures will not work. No amount of evil is acceptable. That change must come from the within the minds of people. Accepting the fact, that the state is an evil abstraction is the begining. And, it's actually enough to begin considering alternatives, which you are already doing.
We are in agreement here. The state only exists and has authority in the minds of people. When people stop believing in the state's power it will cease to exist.
yaaarrrgg;832918 wrote: The people are the government ... you and I. The resulting system is what we've agreed upon for basic order (or mostly agree upon to continue to accept). We are real; "the state" is not.
Right but the state does not give anyone the choice to accept or reject government, it is forced on everyone born within the borders of its country. No individual, to my knowledge, has ever signed a contract agreeing to waive all his natural rights in favor of acceptence of state approved privileges. Or to accept and be bound by all the rules of government.
yaaarrrgg;832918 wrote: Of course, I don't have any issues with changing the status quo. What I think anarchists should focus on though, is decentralization ... to split power and function into smaller units. Giving local governments and cities more power and responsibility.
No form of government is compatible with anarchy. Remember anarchy is the practical application of the moral premise that the iniation of force is wrong. All governments initiate force, grow by seeking more and more power to control, and become corrupt. Thus all governments are immoral ie: bad for mankind.
yaaarrrgg;832918 wrote: To some degree that kind of change is appealing to me, but I worry though that the results may likewise be a bit disappointing. There's something to be said about there being strength in numbers. You can do some things with a large central government that are nearly impossible to coordinate with a hodge podge of small (person-sized?) governments. Sometimes those things we like, and sometimes we don't like.
IMO the optimal system will always contain some degree of two opposites, like centralization and decentralization, freedom and control, top-down and bottom-up control ... etc. Since it's a matter of balance, not necessarily one of extracting some part of the system we find intuitively appealing and applying it to the exclusion of balancing factors.
Half way measures will not work. No amount of evil is acceptable. That change must come from the within the minds of people. Accepting the fact, that the state is an evil abstraction is the begining. And, it's actually enough to begin considering alternatives, which you are already doing.