The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: "Free society" is not fair

(See in situ)

"Free society" is not fair

"Free society" is not fair (warm heart) but just (cold and blind.)

The liberals are always trying to make life "fair," how is that working out for you? If everything needs to be fair, then nobody could be of a greater station in life then the lowest common denominator. I certainly hope you like being poor, because if you're going to be trying to make life fair, or 'warm and fuzzy,' then you are never going to be happy, because that is a fools errand for it is an impossible mission.

Private system is useless to enforce the punishment if a person has money to bribe, etc, etc.

Isn't this already going on? Worse then what your fears are, is that Politicians are being bribed to make laws in favor of those who did the bribing: regulations to limit compitition, limited liability, bailouts, etc. How exactly has government helped maintain your liberty when there was someone willing to pay heavily for the government to limit your liberty? At least in an Anarchic system there is no government to levee laws upon everybody at the behest of those who did the bribing. Also, in a completely Free Market, the potential compititon is infinite, therefore, no company will ever be able to get as big as the corporations which already do the things which you are affraid of happining in an Anarchic system.

Anarchism in reality collapses into tyranny of private mafia that controls private courts and police.

This isn't neccessarily true. In 1681 to 1691 Pennsylvania operated essentially without a government at all, including judges. They didn't have a problem. Do you know who had the problem? I'll tell you who; William Penn. His problem was that nobody was paying their property taxes, which he counted on to make him extremely wealthy. He resorted to getting the King of England to use the military to force government onto a people who were functioning just fine without one.

Also, Ireland -before the British conquered it- had no known government, or justice system, and that lasted for many hundreds of years.

Somalia -the place everybody points to as an symbol of an Anarchist system. After the collapse, there was violence, however, this violence lasted for maybe a year or so, and then dropped off. There are several reasons why it dropped off, but one was that with nothing being imported or exported and no money, the would be warlords couldn't acquire ammunition. For about two years it started to emerge as a more peaceful system, and then the US, and Uk decided to start giving humanitarian aid. The food was stolen and sold by the would be warlords, to be able to buy weapons and ammunition. Then the US and UK decided to instigate a war between Ethiopia and Somalia. This is what we currently see. A country which has very little money, very little humanitarian aid, and Ethiopians trying to kill them, as well as US/UK armed warlords also trying to seize control. I wonder why there is chaos there. Ignorance truly must be bliss.

Another place which is a quasi-anarchist state would hav eto be Zimbabwe. This country suffered hyper-inflation more severe then the Weimar republic. If the people of Zimbabwe weren't so depenedt on foreign aid before the collapse, then they would have had a greater agricultural infastructure in place. As it happened they didn't really have much in the form of agriculture -most of their food came as aid- so when the collapse happened they were left stranded with only a little in the form of agriculture. They are still trying to work things out, but without a larger agriculture base, they will not last very long; but these people became too dependent on others for their very survival, and if they don't start doing more for themselves they will die. However, it is not very violent there.

The Soviet Collapse doesn't count as an anarchist society, because the Russian government still existed and still had control over the people, most of the people at least. If the Russian government would have just slipped away into nothingness then you would have seen violnce decrease significantly over time as it has been shown in every other country; as long as -that is- there wasn't an outside influence such as the US to instigate trouble.