4 votes

Pro-Anarchist Thread.

Okay Wolfe.. Let's here some answers.

Rules of "engagement"..
1: Keep your answers as succinct as possible.
2: Try not to delve into philosophy.. stay in the practical realm.
3: Leave your hubris at the door.
4: No deflecting or spitting.

Edit: Rule number 5

5: No link for your answers.

How would an Anarchist handle speeding. How fast is too fast. If there was an accident... Would someone be arrested? Who would do the arresting? Privatized firms? How would you deal with corruption in those firms?

Ding Ding!!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wolfe's picture

Sorry about the delay.

I came down with the flu. Still recovering, but will get back to this thread as soon as I feel better.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

That's what Valentine smooching can bring you. :)

I hope you feel better.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

wolfe's picture

Thank you.

It took a while and then I got wrapped up in life and dropped out for a bit. My apologies on that, but sometimes if I don't take a break, I get too wrapped up in spending time around here.

It's usually easiest to take that time after I am forced to for some reason, like getting sick.

In any event, if you want to pick up where we left off, we can. In all honesty, I would have to read back to remember where we left off... lol.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

well

It sounds simple to me in this scenario.

Everyone takes the same risk in driving the car. So no one can be arrested because there was no crime and there was no crime because there was no law.

There could be private firms.

There could be private firms. There would be basically a government just built around private contract... could even have a private legislature, court, security and of course law; possibly requiring speed limits. And insurance would figure out a way for sure... maybe you would just call an accident mediator... show your insurance cards and settle like we do now. In fact some cities are just having civilians respond to accidents now because there is no reason to have an officer unless someone is violent. Private contracts are powerful and can be enforced without a monopoly on law. People presume that in anarcho-capitalist societies humans have lost all decency. However, if someone is going to do a hit and run then they would do it in either society. Thus, proving most humans stick around after the accident to settle these kind of disputes. Also, it would not be an immoral system based on violence.

There could be private firms.

There could be private firms. There would be basically a government just built around private contract... could even have a private legislature, court, security and of course law. And insurance would figure out a way for sure... maybe you would just call an accident mediator... show your insurance cards and settle like we do now. Private contracts are powerful and can be enforced without a monopoly on law.

wolfe's picture

Up top again on - Choice in law.

In an anarchistic society, if for whatever reason I was fed up with all the choices available to me for jurisdiction, I could save money or pool it with other folks to buy land and create a new jurisdiction.

Now suppose, we built beautiful homes and hoarded gold in the floor boards and so we decided we needed someone to protect us from outsiders and even each other since we just didn't think we had the manpower to do it ourselves.

We could review what amounts to contracts provided by various security/property management firms, and agree to select one to oversee our security. The contracts would include whatever rules and regulations that they would enforce and that we would agree to.

If it was a partnership purchase, just like any business each of us would have a say in the selection based on how much stake we owned in the property, etc.

(Remember that the original constitution prior to amendment held only land owners could vote... Ever wonder why?)

If for some reason, we decided we didn't like their laws any more, we could switch, or renegotiate the contract.

If an individual didn't like the laws decided on by the rest, they could sell their stake, create a new community and start all over again.

Law according to market mechanisms.

Something to ponder. Contracts are treaties between individuals.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Interesting how very nomadic

Interesting how very nomadic it all sounds. You know, it was the political stability of the emergence of the Nation-State that allowed Europe to exit the dark ages and was a pre-requisite for capitalism, right? That political instability like under Feudalism does not allow for capitalism? See: Africa. There's less government intervention in Africa than in the US but there is no stability. Stability is provided by a strong, credible state and it allows for forecasting the future and investment.

You see, we DO have a record of historical anarchism. It will not fit the black-and-white thinking of the typical anarchist's paradigm but it will provide a useful tool for how much government is necessary for wealth maximization.

A utilitarian looks at history and sees that too much government = communism = poverty. On the other hand, too LITTLE government = feudalism, balkanization, radical ethnocentrism/tribalism = poverty. So the historian concludes that wealth maximization(utility) lies somewhere in the middle(benevolent constitutional monarchies and republics).

Some early anarchists made the mistake of citing ancient anarchist civilizations as proof that anarchism "can work". The seeds of its own undoing are the failures of the model to stick even within those very civilizations. An interesting aside, the longest lasting anarchist community lasted until the early 1900's and lived in almost total communism in Africa. So much for anarcho-"capitalism", but an argument for anarcho-pauperism, anarcho-tribalism, and anarcho-third-worldism.

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

You seriously aren't suggesting that governments were required

for business are you?

The first day, one guy had too much food, and another guy had an extra girl, there was a free market.

Business has nothing to do with government.

What historian concludes any of that? Because not only is it a drastic over simplification, it simply isn't true.

Further, it is hardly nomadic. As indicated, generally most things would would be completely resolved without relocation. And if relocation were required it would likely be hardly as drastic as relocating to a different state, which is currently the requirement for far less benefit. Further, the presence of competition is enough to keep most situations in line. In addition, people decide what is worth the effort, current hardship vs. expected hardship.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Look at history and decide.

Look at history and decide. My interpretation is sound. Is the rule of law required for business? Is STABILITY in the rule of law and the lawmaking authority better or worse for business? I mean there are thousands of pages written by law + economics gurus on this stuff.

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

It's your assertion.

I am required to defend and document my assertions. So should you.

I am also required in this discussion to cite references, and make my own arguments without passing it off on some third party writer.

If there are thousands of pages written supporting your statements, it shouldn't be a big deal to provide a link to examples, documentation, and provide a coherent argument that involves not saying, "It's obvious."

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I JUST made the argument 2

I JUST made MY OWN UNIQUE argument 2 posts up. If you want me to spoonfeed you articles too, here: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=politica...

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

You made an assertion.

I asked you to back it up. Show me the historical references that you suggest exist that support your theory that a strong state is required for prosperity.

The reference to Africa was not a good one because that is a whole continent with many varied forms of strong and weak governments, as well as a long history of having strong external governments interfere in their politics, wars, and affairs.

It also includes both extremely rich and extremely poor nations, due to a wide range of factors.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I can't teach you 2000 years

I can't teach you 2000 years of history on an internet forum, I'm sorry. At some point you're going to have to take it or leave it. For ex, are you seriously asking me to prove to you that medieval Europe was unstable? I really did try to reference only "common knowledge". If you will never stipulate to anything and just challenge every assertion I make then there is no point or end in sight.

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

2000 years of history

I am quite familiar with the last 2000 years of history.

It is why I suggested you prove your assertion. You can't state it was unstable because it lacked government, it most certainly did not lack government. You argue that it's form of government was a factor in the instability, which may hold some merit, however, that form of government has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

You make an assumption that "no government" results in "X government" and then you subsequently argue against X government. That is a strawman as you cannot prove a link between no government and X government. Further, your assertions about X government, are in and of themselves not accurate.

X being tribalism, warlordism, fuedalism, etc that you reference. In some cases these forms of government resulted in a great deal of prosperity.

You also tried to claim business required the formation of strong government. This also was most certainly not the case.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

That's ridiculous, I made no

That's ridiculous, I made no such argument and its plain for everyone to see. I also predicte such a response when I said that black and white anarchist thinkers would not be able to comprehend my argument, which was based on matters of degree at the margin an not primitive binary analysis. You may disagree with my inferences or the weight of my assumptions but the logic is sound. Also calling tribalism a form of "government" is very strange, considering the anarchist posterchilds of ancient Israel and Ireland were tribal.

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

.

.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

wolfe's picture

Murder:

This would likely be based on the rules set forth in whatever community you were a part of.

My HOA prohibits me from parking my car in the fire lane. If I do so, I have agreed by signing the documents to live here, that they have the right to tow and impound. It's voluntary. They cannot stop me from moving, and they can demand no more/less from me than what is in the contract that I agreed to. Why is it so hard to believe that a community couldn't set rules on NAP violations like murder (or anything else, really). They would also likely provide security (some of them would anyway), which is far better to have active protection than a homicide investigation (http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/crime/unsolved-murder-rate-...).

I also pay a nominal fee, which covers their expenses for services provided like water/trash. Once again, it is voluntary as I could simply move to a different community if I so desired, which creates competition for "customers" which in turn produces the most desirable outcome for individuals as communities try different things to compete for your "business".

(As I recall, average tax rates in Switzerland are around 1-2% because they define them at a community level and the communities compete for revenue by lowering their profit margin.)

As I mentioned, the UN and other world organizations have no authority over any nation. But they perform their role through consensus, courts, and contracts(treaties), etc.

The United States actually does prohibit you from leaving their jurisdiction in MANY ways, which I can go into detail.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Your HOA styled approach and comments to support

it are not much different than a minarchist's approach. A minarchist rallies behind State power over Federal, where you can move to a different State if your state offends you and you can't get it to change to your liking. Your smaller HOA approach just increases the number of possible groups even as it doesn't mention anything about the HOA's becoming large like a state. We can address that later if you like though.

"I also pay a nominal fee, which covers their expenses for services provided like water/trash. Once again, it is voluntary as I could simply move to a different community if I so desired, which creates competition for "customers" which in turn produces the most desirable outcome for individuals as communities try different things to compete for your "business"."

Other than the nominal size difference in your HOA and a minarchist's state sized group, I would say we agree on that. Competing, truly competing though, service providers is a good thing.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

wolfe's picture

Here is why the state based version fails.

There is no competition since so much is currently defined at a federal level. There are relatively few things that differ. Furthermore, the federal government lays claim to you. You are NOT allowed to leave the jurisdiction, under any circumstance (except with certain special permission which we can discuss later).

Further, the states are bound by federal law to behave a certain way. Abortion is one, minor, example. Legal mechanisms. Election laws. Legislature bodies, etc, etc, etc.

As an example of competing laws. States do compete on a relatively few minor points. And murder is in fact one of them. It is not a crime in the federal system. Go figure. Shouldn't it be a law if it is so important to have a law?

Florida for instance gives me the right to put a bullet in anyone that steps on my property without permission. While states like California, will potentially put you in jail for life for defending yourself against an armed intruder.

Size is irrelevant. If a community grows in popularity and becomes large, it is for good reason. Only the competition and voluntary structure matters.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

But if you give up your

But if you give up your citizenship, as long as you aren't a convicted felon, you can leave the country quite easily.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

wolfe's picture

This is not correct.

The federal government extorts 5 years worth of projected taxes in order to expatriate.

Furthermore, what good would that do? You would simply be choosing another jurisdiction on a semi-monopoly. Refer to my jurisdiction comments below.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

So yes, they do they now.

So yes, they do they now. Thbey only started that in 2010. But before that, you could still leave the country and give up your citizenship, and I still heard those arguments.

That too, you don't have to choose another jurisdiction or semi-monopoloy. You can choose to be stateless, with whatever consequences that that has. You can also choose to live in the ocean, or some tiny plot of land somewhere...or you can move to Somalia, etc. etc.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"There is no competition since so much is currently defined at

a federal level."

Of course that's incorrect based on my ideology and that of a minarchists.. Remember now.. we're hashing out post state.. not present state. This assumes for the sake of the argument that if you got what you wanted or I got what I wanted there would be "this or that" going on.

"Size is irrelevant. If a community grows in popularity and becomes large, it is for good reason. Only the competition and voluntary structure matters."

Size does matter. :)

For what I meant it wasn't a pivotal point.. it was merely descriptive. States however are just large HOA's..and today, they are equally nasty.

Maybe you've heard all of the horror stories about tyrannical HOA boards reeking havoc? Why when dealing with people would you think that you'd escape control freaks?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

wolfe's picture

First.

States are fundamentally different than HOA's. Maybe you missed the part about having a right to leave the jurisdiction? Or their subservience to federal law? Or the lack of power that it's sub parts have over it?

As far as control freaks. Of course you will have problems with HOA's. Just as there are now, and just as we have with government.

The difference is that the competition breeds better behavior. And gives your recourse (voluntary), if your needs aren't met, or you feel abused. Government based systems provide no such mechanism other than the tyranny of a king or the tyranny of a majority.

For instance, I researched my HOA first. I like 'em. They are never overbearing, they always do their job, and the cost is cheaper than what I would personally pay for cable/water, etc, which are then supplied for free. They don't raise their dues, etc. If that were not the case, I would find another place to live, actually, I would have never moved here to begin with.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

"Maybe you missed the part about having a right to leave the

jurisdiction?"

No, I just didn't find it truthful. Yes you can leave the state of Texas and go to NH if you want to. The FEDs control what you're talking about.. they are THE state, not A state. miniarchy calls for abolition of the majority of control to where the FEDS have certain powers or abolishing it all together.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

wolfe's picture

"No, I just didn't find it truthful."

I am always truthful. So never make that assumption. There may be a detail which isn't being made clear enough for you to understand the distinctions, but they are present.

In this case, I very clearly stated why you cannot leave the jurisdiction.

Now, let me explain an additional finer point. In the case of a state, it is assumed that all the people own all of everything. It is communal in nature. This is illustrated by property tax and the inability to leave the jurisdiction.

If, in anarchism, I wanted to leave the jurisdiction and not have anyone be responsible but myself, for instance to save money. I should be able to buy land, own it, and set my own laws/rules, and start my own community, or be a community of one.

You cannot buy land from the state. They will always own it and claim jurisdiction over you. You can only "escape" by moving into another jurisdiction, not by starting your own, hence, no real choice in the matter. No competition. A tightly controlled semi-monopoly, even if there was no federal government, the states may act in collusion to pass all the same rules making it irrelevant to switch (car insurance is an excellent example of this scenario).

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

"Now, let me explain an additional finer point. In the case of

a state, it is assumed that all the people own all of everything. It is communal in nature. This is illustrated by property tax and the inability to leave the jurisdiction."

It wasn't an assumption.. the truthful part was an observation on the comment itself, not you.

To answer the quote: You're wrong to assume that.. this is how it is, presently.. not how I see it in my desired future.. even the State of NH as I see it would be stripped down to pretty near administrative levels. Just enough to get the needed tasks done. I'm not talking about just removing the FEDS and letting the States take its place, although for a time, it would be better than what we have now.

"If, in anarchism, I wanted to leave the jurisdiction and not have anyone be responsible but myself, for instance to save money. I should be able to buy land, own it, and set my own laws/rules, and start my own community, or be a community of one."

Minarchist are no different on that and hold up property rights as sovereign rights. At least I do.. If I'm on my property I can do all of that EXCEPT when it came to victim crimes. I would not be able to kill another human being on my land unless self defense. Unless you see that differently?

"You cannot buy land from the state. They will always own it and claim jurisdiction over you. You can only "escape" by moving into another jurisdiction, not by starting your own, hence, no real choice in the matter."

I think you should read up in minarchy a bit more.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

wolfe's picture

Incorrect.

Minarchists advocate enough government for courts and basic functions.

Anarchists advocate no monopoly on courts, taxation or any services.

Minarchists advocate enforcing their laws on my land.

Anarchists advocate competition in law and legal systems.

It seems you need to read more on anarchism, not the other way around.

Our viewpoints are very similar. Ours just happens to be morally correct as well as market effective.

And honestly, I do think many anarchists do a poor job of explaining this down to the finer points. You are correct in that. I can do so, as I have proven. I just dislike doing it, because I find the conversation less than useful since it will not happen anytime soon, and I do not argue for mechanisms. I only am explaining how I would see things come to their natural conclusion.

It also get's confused because most anarchists would like to ignore physicality when discussing mechanisms, which is just not in the realm of the realistic.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/