Comment: You are wrong about the goals of most self proclaimed an-caps

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If I'm wrong about something (see in situ)

You are wrong about the goals of most self proclaimed an-caps

The goals are not to eliminate community legal institutions, or social contracts or public arbitration.

You also believe that without the authority of the state to commit crimes against the people, a code of behavior could never be established or enforced. It is either all behavior is criminal or none. I believe the abstraction that is the law(in our case the constitution) can be adopted by a free people more readily than by a people subjected by the state.

They are just to eliminate the coercion of the state. The involuntary subjugation of individuals by a systematic predatory process. I do not have a problem with self government. I believe in the arrangements between members of society. The authority of the group to determine criminal behavior. The authority of society to aggress upon individuals in it. It should just be based on a basis of morality. And authority to regard the law with impunity, or subject the citizenry to one law and the bureaucrats to another should not be granted.

What that means is that the government should not be allowed to steal, to murder, to lock people up etc... as retribution for not adhering too arbitrary decree. If I as a citizen cannot impose such a demand on my fellow citizen, then neither should the institution responsible for enforcing the law be able to impose such a demand upon me. That the government should have no special privilege. The law exist in the abstract, and the mechanisms for enforcing it should be decentralized. Open source, even. Nothing should be demanded of my labor or industry under threat of force.

We have talked about it before. You say that if society agrees through the political process that we all owe an amount of wealth to an entity to provide the service of defense, then that political entity has the right to stop proving the service of protection. I agree.

it is when it comes to that entity's authority to initiate violence against the individual who does not pay what is demanded, that you lose my buy in. I do not believe that a construct for self government is just, that claims the authority to initiate violence against a "citizen" who does not "pay his dues". It is one thing to end his service. Another to attack him and throw him in a cage. That, I do not believe is just or an optimal system for society to organize itself by.

The state is the institution that demands of my labor and industry solely because I reside in the territory over which it has achieved military dominance. The state is not we. The state is not society. The state is as you put it, the gang in charge. I do not want the state in my society.

There was no state in Iceland during the period directly after the first settlers arrived in the middle 900's. The period of the historical cycle in Irish history up until the invasion of the Normans in 1200 was also stateless. The American west had essentially a voluntary legal system that was very well documented. The uplands of southeast Asia, an area called zomia was stateless for centuries. 19th century busoga in Africa was particularly capable of organizing militarily as a stateless society. Most cultures surrounding the politically dominant roman empire had voluntary systems of organization.

I could go on. You will probably just say, prove it. You aren't developing enough. That's why I gave you the books. It would take me a decade to explain the history of stateless societies, how they organized, and what they fell to. Read them or not. Just save me the crap about not providing you with empirical evidence. Read the books, prove me wrong, or accept it as truth.

In any case it is not my point. Providing you with data doesn't solve the fact that you are not allowing yourself to see things differently. See it from an anarchists eyes. See it from the eyes of an intelligent person who studies hard, and spends alot of time developing his ideas and has come to the conclusion that anarchy is the optimal choice. What do they see? Why do they see it that way?

All you see is that "They are wrong! They don't see it my way!" and that is what goldspan meant when he said you will never get it.