The last word on the anarchism debate
OK, I know the title is presumptuous, but now that I have your attention...
A couple prefatory comments:
First, the Minarchists persistently adhere to the anarchy = chaos popular definition of the term, whereas the Anarcho-Capitalists (AnCaps) adhere to its Greek derivation, i.e., no ruler. Absent common agreement on what they mean by the term no progress may be made.
Second, some Minarchists have complained that as anarchism = chaos in the minds of the masses, the attempt to defend anarchism will turn potential recruits away from the liberty movement. While there may be truth to this, the discussion is not one of how to make anarchism popular so much as it has been whether anarchism is preferable to minarchy. Nevertheless, to avoid any odious definitional aspects of anarchism, the problem may be resoved by referring to the anarchism of the AnCaps as Voluntaryism, or why not use "libertarianism"? The Libertarian Party position paper on "Libertarianism" states "we look forward to a society...ruled completely by voluntary consent, where all economic and social dealings are unencumbered by...political power". Sounds like the AnCap vision of anarchy to me.
However, my main point is that there has been much exasperation by posters on both sides of this debate, unnecessarily so, I believe, due to both sides overlooking the context in which any real movement toward liberty would occur and what that would mean for the viability of minarchy or anarchism.
Lets face it. We are light years away from a free society. Minarchy or anarchy will not occur in a vacuum. For either Minarchy or anarchism to have a realistic chance at implementation would require a sea change in the views of the public. Assuming we reach that glorious day when the Minarchist ideal has been realized will mean the bulk of the people reject nearly, if not all, government activity. In that environment, will the Minarchists still insist only government may provide a legal system with its attendant criminal justice system, police and prisons such that any attempts to compete with these government services by those in the marketplace would be suppressed by force? Or, with the love of liberty clearly the dominant political belief throughout society, would Minarchists then accede to freeing the marketplace to provide ALL services, including those previousy reserved to government as currently advocated by Minarchists? If, at that point Minarchists would feel secure enough to be assured that government would not again grow beyond the minimal state, I see no reason why they should object to people being free to seek marketplace alternatives to the few remaining government monopolies. And if these alternatives prove to successfully meet people's needs allowing society to slip into anarchism (or voluntarism or libertarianism) should be no problem.
Given that achieving either Minarchy or anarchism will only come to fruition when the public accepts these views all the heated discussion in these threads as to the viability of anarchism should evaporate.
When I was young I remember Babyboomers saying "don't mean
to toot my own horn," and remember thinking, "well if you don't who will?"
That was the beginning of my study of American-Individualism.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Marlow I respect you...
so please don't take this the wrong way, but crushing dreams is the first step in deterring goal accomplishment.
I think the general public cannot understand some of the content discussed here in it's true fashion and by its proper definition, but that is rectified through study. To stifle the content and complexity of discussion simply to satisfy the least common denominator is a step backward. I agree that the weakest man on the team is the pace at which the team must, but while bearing the burden it is reasonable, profitable and positive to dream beyond the current circumstances.
I hope we all can learn not only to help one another along, but also to help one another ahead. We gain nothing without dreaming.
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
http://img16.imageshack.u...
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6523/anarchistflame.jpg
BRILLIANT POST.
hate to boost your ego, or mine - but this is certainly my two cents.
-
keep going with this
-
also, some very enlightening commentary below
-
thank you, participants
-
my only complaint is the title of the post, tho i understand your impetus. thank you, again
When the Central Bank of Iceland basically collapsed....
The Icelander's got extremely upset as did the Nords, and they crashed down the bank & crashed down the walls.
A similar thing happened here with Bank of America.....
So.......were they wrong to collapse it? I don't think so...
I think we need to do the same, and have a field day with the banks..
i am a carpenter/builder among other things
if the FED collapses i will still have something valuable - of course i can also plant a garden, know edible wild plants, can hunt, start a fire w/o a match. . .
-
if/when the central bank collapses, how many people will have valuable skills?
-
me, don't know and don't care. i'm some kind of "anarchist" i'll participate in whatever system i want to, at will. those banks only affect me to the extent i let them.
-
people have this idea "we are all in this together." well, sortof, except where is your REAL power and influence?
-
all should look into contract law and realize we all participate in these systems essentially voluntarily, albeit most are only bound by their own presumptions b/c the are ignorant of the ramificatins of maritime/admiralty law
-
you have unlimited right to contract, or not to - if you don't like the contracts, rewrite them
Where does true power reside...
You've correctly identified its place when you note that this world and its governance "only affect me to the extent I let them".
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
marlow writes: "There is
marlow writes:
"There is only one law: we must not infringe upon the rights to life, liberty, or property of another .” If we do, whomever we have injured can file a witnessed, sworn complaint, convene an assembly or grand jury of fellow sovereigns who will decide whether that claim against us is legitimate and deal with us accordingly."
With whom does the injured party file this complaint?
With an assembly or grand
With an assembly or grand jury of his neighbours who would have a vested interest in protecting themselves from criminal activity also.
And FYI marlow did not write that statement I did.
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Sorry for mixing the quote
Sorry for mixing the quote up.
I'm not 100% aware of the details of the anarchist system.
What happens if two people in the same neighbourhood assemble grand juries of the same size and file complaints against each other?
They try and pick a 3rd
They try and pick a 3rd party neighbourhood to air the dispute. Why assume without government most people would not want peaceful society that does not violate thier rights? Doesn't mean there would never be a violent conflict there are now. But society does not exist because of government it exist because most people want to live peaceful productive lives.
They were sold a bill of good that government was needed to secure thier rights. How has that worked out? It seems every government in history has eventually oppressed their rights.
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Republicae writes: "The
Republicae writes:
Your premise is flawed. it assumes there is no body to apply such law. It is the same body that should apply all laws "the people."
There is only one law: we must not infringe upon the rights to life, liberty, or property of another .” If we do, whomever we have injured can file a witnessed, sworn complaint, convene an assembly or grand jury of fellow sovereigns who will decide whether that claim against us is legitimate and deal with us accordingly. Anything else is nobodies business
A created government does not embody that law, it is inherent in every human being. The worst criminal knows it is wrong to rob, steal, harm, murder, and extort etc. he just doesn't care. I don't think it will be hard to have a majority of people to agree with that. Putting it on paper does not make it of any more effect. The ancient Celts and Icelanders had long lasting societies up to a thousand years based and pretty much that.
Do you not think your neighbours will have the same vested interest in bringing criminals to justice as you do without government? It's been done like that for thousands of years. Some will say but what if the assembly or grand jury etc. becomes lawless? Well gee we all know governmet would never become lawless so lets create a government and give our power to them... Sigh. it's a useless argument that government somehow prevents the things many claim will happen with anarchy or a free sovereign society.
The strawman argument that always seems to be implied is that those arguing for anarchy somehow believe it will be perfect which of course has never been implied. We have something like 60,000,000 statutes compelling us to act or not act on damn near any issue you can imagine so you decide which would be easier to manage that or a society of free sovereigns? And we can see the results of the first and history has some rather positive results of the latter too.
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
What utter nonsense....
You're not discussing a republic of anarcho capitalists anymore than a wildlife photo expert can describe an oak tree!
What you are discussing is the opposite, a form of communism...
I don't agree with your ideals at all. But that's the beauty of it, we can be the founders of our own destiny.
And the founders argued about the same things, regardless if at the end of the day they all went to war.
Based on your assumptions
Based on your assumptions then what you have described is not anarchy but another form of government. You say the people are to apply the law, but that has its own unintended consequences of hierarchy does it not? You are relying upon people to be the judge and executioner and to do so in a way that is just. Yet, we all know that the nature of man is, by far, not angelic at all. What to do with the criminal, what to do with an insane person who murders another? Hang him on the nearest tree, that anarchist style justice has long been proven far from effective in terms of providing either protection or real justice. Besides, there has been, even from Neanderthal times a natural inclination toward some form of social organization, whether in the form of a family or clan hierarchy or tribal, it happens and, I dare say that some form of hierarchy would also form in the vacuum of anarchy even if the anarchists deny it to their last breath.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Well the problem in all
Well the problem in all these arguments is defining terms. Your definition of anarchy as a vacum is incorrect. Your description of what happens in your incorrect definition of anarchy better describes what happens with government as history proves.
It a strawman argument based on you false characterization of anarchy
The very nature of man you describe is precisely why we should not have government vested with power to use said nature to abuse and oppress the rights of others under color of law. Or perhaps you can explain how and when in history government ever prevented such nature from asserting itself rather then government using it's false authority to amplify that nature and commit the atrocities history is replete with under color of false law and authority in many cases?
Also what I described is a group of individuals coming together voluntarily and mutually cooperating to protect their inherent rights and redress wrongs. There is no authority delegated to some formed 3rd party entity called government and given a monoply on violence and judgement.
Again the premise that society would descend in to chaos without government is patently false and history proves it!
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
You just murdered
Anarchy. You subjugate individuals under the authority of others. Is that not what just every anarchist complains the constitution does?
Lets say Kneel and Bob are neighbors. Kneel lives up stream from Bob. Every morning Kneel takes a dump in the that small stream. When Bob makes coffee he picks up particulates of Bob's fecal matter in his pot.
Unless their is an authority to enforce the contract between Kneel and Bob. Bob is screwed.
Bob aquires
Large bulldozer, re-routes stream. If that fails, bob purchases large cannon. lol. It doesn't matter, the stream is full of fecal matter from all types of critters anyway. Boil the water.
Anarchy does not mean lack
Anarchy does not mean lack of authority or lawlessness. Why do you people keep posing false arguments?
You falsely characterize anarchy by suggesting there is no remedy when someone harms or violates the rights of others. Assuming they have a contract Bob is not screwed he is the authority to enforce the contract. Since Kneel has violated his rights. However there is no need for a contract this is a violation of rights period.
Everyone has the authority to prevent their rights from being violated and to bring justice to those who do, that authority is inherent. Your rights stop where mine began.
Turn off the media programing. Positive anarchy is not lawlessness and chaos etc. it is a society of free sovereign individuals who live by the law spoken off and can mutually cooperate to protect their rights if need be. Mutual cooperation voluntary association!
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Shooting people?
I am talking about far less complex issue.
Both people share the same stream. Does Kneel have to right to take a dump in it and does Bob have the right to clean coffee?
I could have made it more complex and asked if Kneel have the right to build a dam.
No
I want to know what the Anarchist position on this.
Does Bob's right to have clean coffee interfere with Kneels right to do what he wants on his property?!?!?!? Who decides who right is more important?
Suppose Bob returns in kind by spaying his land with chemtrails.
Can two people be completely sovereign. The answer is no. There can only be one sovereign and respecting his laws is what matters.
Bob Boils his water
As everyone does, because dumb as@es like Kneel sh@t in the water. Case closed.
Wow that just about the most
Wow that just about the most inane thing I have ever heard. I almost did not respond because someone with such a fundamental lack of understanding of freedom I doubt would have the first clue about it.
The right to do what you want on your property does not extend you the right to violate my rights because you are on your property. You do not have the right to arbitrarily shoot me from your property just because you are stadning on your property. You do not have the right to dump garbage on my property including sending it down stream because you are on your own property.
Again you are arguing from a false premise. Your rights stop where mine begin. Falsely characterizing anarchy as doing anything you damn well please regardless of who it harms is a non starter.
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Part of the problem...
I think they are pretty committed to the corporatist/mercantilist idea that doing whatever you want on your property, if it profits you, is fine even if it causes problems for someone else. The government sanctions this all the time, after all. Whoever has the most money, is best connected to the government, makes the biggest tax contribution is the only one with the rights. It's just a corporatist paradigm. It's pretty hard to get around for people who have their minds bent in that direction and don't appreciate individualism.
Ending all corporate identity would go a long way toward creating the kind of society in which people had (individual) rights.
It seems to me as well...
that a fatal misconception throughout this thread is that one finds their sovereignty as a singularity. By that I mean that both "Bob" and "Kneel" derive a portion of their individual sovereignty by protecting the sovereignty of each other. This is not a outward police action, but an action of prime regard - an inward police action; self-regulation. It is indeed the implementation of the golden rule. This may seem to implicate an ideal, but in reality it is the only law, therefore, far from ideal it is the ultimate reality staring us in the face. Sovereignty is fundamentally about community and cooperation, in scale from small to large; from the individual to the family to the town and outward. The greatest form of control the NWO has over individuals is to convince them that they are "on their own". When one is simply invested in themselves, all their actions are focused inward. Now this isn't the same as providing for yourself, it is the greed of "them against me". Once mentally isolated into trapped individuals, we fight only for ourselves and not each other. You will never find sovereignty unless you offer your Liberty for the defense of others Liberty. If "Kneel" truly understood anarchy then he'd make damn sure not to crap in the stream because his rights depended on his protecting the rights of others. The unfortunate aspect of anarchy is that it demands the absence of greed; and that is easier said than done.
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
Dispute resolution
is the Achilles' Heel.
They make it up as they go along, and expect people to think it will work. Even though it's always more full of holes than swiss cheese.
My favorite response to an anarchist argument about any rules being accepted without coercion is "Sez who?".
They can't answer.
It's a cluster f*ck.
Wow you're just full of non
Wow you're just full of non answers with no substance. We have offered many examples in history and currently. People solve their own disputes without government every day.
Try facing reality instead of stubbornly and laughningly trying to justify your emotional attachment to you false belief.
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Oh.
What if I decide not to accept any dispute resolution?
I'm not interested in resolving a dispute in which I don't win.
Since there is no authority, what or who is to say I'm wrong? Who has the authority to judge me or penalize me?
I don't recognize any man's authority over me, under any conditions whatsoever.
Wow the ignorance really
Wow the ignorance really abounds. Where does government supposedly get it's authority? If reading this question you still do not understand where authority to protect individual rights are derived from then there is no point ins talking to you, might as well talk to a wall.
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
They would say that to live
They would say that to live in an anarchist community you have to sign a contract that binds you to the appointed court system. If you don't sign the contract, you can be butcherd and your property seized should you refuse to move and accept an "eminent domain" settlement fee for your property.
Ventura 2012
Fools always resort to
Fools always resort to attempted ridicule when they have nothing of substance to contribute. But hey you got a laugh from the clown section.
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!