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!!

Comment viewing options

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

"Minarchists advocate enough government for courts and basic

functions."

Yeah but that doesn't mean there isn't room for other forms of arbitration.

"Minarchists advocate enforcing their laws on my land."

Surely you adhere to natural rights and therefor natural law? You said NAP was your "blueprint" so what happens when someone steps onto another persons land and the owner shoots them, is found at fault (by who and what "court")and that person has created their own state with their own laws? Are you saying that anyone that they invite onto their land and then kill, is fair game and the owner since he has created his own laws has found himself not guilty? :)

"Ours just happens to be morally correct as well as market effective."

You sure do speak a lot in absolutes. :)

No, your ideology isn't perfectly moral and besides.. morality is subjective in many cases.

I'm going to answer some of the rest and I'm going to relax for the night.. I'll pick this up tomorrow.

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

I won't debate the word moral specifically...

Because I only use it to shortcut certain concepts in communication, to state the difference between right/wrong.

As far as your imaginary scenario about being subject to absurd laws invented by someone. Do you believe in property rights or not? Apparently not.

When you decide to enforce your laws on another person, on their property, that is a violation of property rights.

What if your law said weed was illegal? Would you enter my land to enforce that law? Both examples, murder and weed are equally absurd extremes. The difference is that yours is a natural consequence of trying to get people to agree on laws. So long as there is no opt-out competition mechanism, there will constantly be fighting over what is a valid law.

First, the scenario is highly unlikely in the real world due to retaliation and competition and it also happens to be absurd.

However, that is currently how governments function. To deny that is to ignore reality. When you enter a country, you are subject to it's laws, even the ridiculous, unfair, and corrupt ones. By entering the country you agree to be bound by them and agree to the consequences of those laws.

There are many ways throughout the world that murder is defined very differently. You are subject to the laws of the location. If you do not want to be subject to them, don't go.

What we offer is no different than what exists today in terms pf possibility. We have offer a system which has a different motivation set and therefore a market driven, preferable outcome.

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

"What if your law said weed was illegal? Would you enter my

land to enforce that law? Both examples, murder and weed are equally absurd extremes."

You seem to have trouble with the difference between the two.

One does something to someone else while the other effects you alone (individual Liberty).

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

And there is the other rub...

If you ask me, or you if weed only effects the individual... We say yes. Many say no.

That argument is what creates politics. But their is no current competition in law, so there is no way out if you disagree.

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

"We say yes. Many say no."

We're not talking about many.. We're talking about Anarchists.

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, we are talking about minarchists.

Because if you are allowed to enforce your laws on my land, then who is stop you from writing bad laws. No one.

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

Why would it matter? Bad is a

Why would it matter? Bad is a subjective term, so who is to say what is good and bad? The fact of the matter is, nature corrects itself. If you are the aggressor on your own land, those you aggress against still have every choice in the world to either prevent or mend the situation in their own best interest.

wolfe's picture

Correct.

Those situations would resolve much faster (in his death) than a state based system, where the crazy ass get's himself elected. ;)

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

Stop deflecting. :)

But yes.. that's why I chose a different route because at the end of the day.. situations in reality come up and anarchy just falls short.

Man has a right to life and stepping onto another persons land doesn't change that no matter what the laws are... Only someone who didn't believe in a natural right to life could condone absolute soverignty in making laws that effect or could effect another persons Liberty.. That's why to me, minarchy is more realistic and moral in many ways.

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

You are being not being intelectually honest.

Minarchism fell short, not anarchism.

There is nothing to stop you from writing bad laws in your situation.

There is something preventing it in anarchism. The NAP allows for self-protection. No one has a right to take your life, but no one is required to defend you either. That is your responsibility to do, pay for, or beg for.

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

I'm not being dishonest in the least, you are.

"There is something preventing it in anarchism."

No there isn't anymore than the Constitution protects men.. Just because your guideline says not to do it doens't mean it's going to happen. That's about honest and realistic as it gets.

"The NAP allows for self-protection."

Yeah but I'm talking about the fallout if your defense doesn't work and you die wrongly on someones property where the person says "fuck you" I own this property, and I'm NOT coming off of it. :)

"No one has a right to take your life, but no one is required to defend you either. That is your responsibility to do, pay for, or beg for."

Yeah and in a perfect world everyone would abide by NAP and never get angry, lose their wits about them and commit murder.. so on and so on in almost infinite variations lol.

I have to get ready for bed. It has been good talking with you but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree and call it a night.

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

Really?

You answer is that because I can't be forced to protect you from this man, it's not doable.

Further, do you have friends, family, security firm to extract justice? Someone will. It will self resolve much faster than when he get's himself elected in your state.

Governments are far more likely to commit these sorts of crazy acts than a lone man with only himself to use as a weapon.

The point is that I admit that the world isn't perfect, so I look for a system that makes it more tolerable.

You believe their is a perfect world somewhere, and so use government to try and create it. I am not the utopian in the situation. You are.

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

You answer is that because I can't be forced to protect you from

this man, it's not doable."

Not sure how this is escaping you unless you're either being dishonest or some sort of cognitive issues.

He's on your land which you created.. your own private state.. you invited him, he stepped on it.. in the course of his stay.. something went wrong and you killed him wrongly.. now what? You go away free? A neighboring "state" declares war on your "state"?

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

You are reversing the roles.

It makes it hard to keep the conversation coherent when you do that.

Previously we were discussing you being murdered. Now we are discussing you as the murderer?

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

Other than an annoyance it's irrelevant.

Time for bed. I'm dosing off. :)

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

We can pick it up tomorrow if you aren't bored yet...

lol.

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

"Do you believe in property rights or not? Apparently not."

Sure I do but I don't think it's a get out of jail free card if you take the Liberty from other people.

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

Ahh, but there is the rub...

Where is liberty lost in my scenarios? Liberty is only lost in yours.

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

Liberty isn't subjective.

Natural laws don't cease to exist because you step onto some other persons land. I'm a sovereign human being, those things written in the Founding Documents are self-evident.

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

Really?

So self evident that California and Florida have radically different concepts of constitutes murder?

Or sharia law which allows honor killings?

Or Christian law, which pre-Christ suggested that stoning a woman for being a whore was a good idea?

Or Muslim law which believes it is valid to kill infidels?

Self evident, eh?

No one has a right to harm you, but no one is required to protect you either. You can protect yourself, ask for help, or pay to have it done, but you cannot EXTRACT anything from me to provide for your protection.

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

Is it evident to you personally?

and

"No one has a right to harm you, but no one is required to protect you either. You can protect yourself, ask for help, or pay to have it done, but you cannot EXTRACT anything from me to provide for your protection."

Yeah but if the guy is on YOUR land, does what you just said not count? If you kill him on your land wrongly, then you get off scott free if you decide so?

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.

Because he is in violation of the NAP. You have a right to defend yourself, or to obtain justice another way.

But it's your responsibility to defend yourself if you chose to go on his land, despite him being a crazy f'ing son-of-a-bitch. Your bad choices, your consequences.

Some crazy scenarios may happen like that at times but they will self-resolve in very short order when the guy get's himself killed.

Under a state based system, that crazy son-of-a-bitch get's himself elected and causes grief for a very long time using the power of the military and police and government as his lapdog.

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

"Because he is in violation of the NAP. You have a right to

defend yourself, or to obtain justice another way."

Yeah but I've already said it wasn't about your right to defend yourself.. That's a given.. I'm talking about you dying at his hand and on his property. Now what? He goes away free? Or you killing him wrongly on your land.. either way.

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

Probably not.

If you had friends, family, a security firm. Most likely not.

But even if he did, due mostly to your bad choices, it is worst case scenario and still better odds than what you have now:

Unsolved murder rates:
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/crime/unsolved-murder-rate-...

Government Responsible Deaths:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

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

"But even if he did, due mostly to your bad choices, it is worst

case scenario and still better odds than what you have now"

That's absurd.. most likely to my bad choices? Because I step onto your property, it's my fault? :)

But I disagree.. Your way and the states way are both bad.

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

It isn't your fault.

Their is a difference between being responsible for your choices, and being at fault.

How is my way worse than the states? You walk into the wrong apartment complex and get shot by someone at random without leaving evidence (which is REALLY what your question boils down to). What does the state do? Other than not solve the murder?

In anarchism, at least their is a greater degree of justice potential. Because there is financial and emotional need to find justice by friends, family, security firm.

But no, I can't promise you every murder will be solved and the world be one big happy place. That is utopian and the realm of government. It's not the real world.

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

wolfe's picture

Foreign Wars:

Our foreign wars are caused by two things.

First, and primarily, currency manipulation. We enter into engagements to hide the fact that we are bankrupt and to prop up the dollar with threats of violence.

Eliminating legal tender laws, would open up competition in currency and make the propping up of the dollar irrelevant. This is consistent with NAP, can be implemented now, and is a valid post-state solution.

--

Second, acting as a private army to hoard resources, both human and asset based in service to corporate interests.

Eliminating the artificial mechanisms that protect corporations from risk, would prevent them from engaging in these activities, and make them far less profitable when they did. This requires repeal of the 14th amendment, and an elimination of limited liability laws.

Achievable now. In line with the NAP. And valid as a post-state solution.

--

Doing these two things eliminates the artificial motivation for engaging in rampant genocidal wars across the globe.

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

"Our foreign wars are caused by two things.

First, and primarily, currency manipulation. We enter into engagements to hide the fact that we are bankrupt and to prop up the dollar with threats of violence."

Actually it's more than that.. it benefits those who prosper off of wars monetarily.

"Eliminating legal tender laws, would open up competition in currency and make the propping up of the dollar irrelevant. This is consistent with NAP, can be implemented now, and is a valid post-state solution."

This is also a valid minarchist view as well.

This is kinda why these two subjects are almost useless as I pointed out before.. they've already been hashed out and both sides have the same views. You're going to disagree most likely with my comparison of your smaller communities to a larger community of course but you'd be wrong. :)

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

Actually, no...

It is an anarchist view, as it involves the elimination of a law(anacrhism), not the addition, reduction or correction of a law (minarchism).

So you agree with us, not the other way around... ;)

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

No.. the abolition of laws is a minarchist approach

too, just certain laws. Not all laws. Search online for minarchists abolition of laws and you'll find all kinds of laws that minarchists want to get rid of.

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.