REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Help from Libertarians/Anarchists

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 04:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7893
PAGE 1 of 4

Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


I've been doing some reading along the Libertarian line and think I get the basic concepts: Personal ownership of self & property, transactions based on contract and not coercion, instigation of force against person or property is wrong, governments are thieves/pirates/banditti who take by force.

My question has to do with the other (non-governmental) thieves, pirates and banditti, and their ilk. Rothbard, for example, thinks that the private criminal class will decline under L/A because everyone will have the opportunity to work and succeed, and won't have the example of the government ripping folk off to emulate. I have my doubts about this. There may be a more down-to-earth answer out there I've missed.

So, In a L/A world, who deals with the thieves, etc? The "everybody pulls out a gun and shoots them" answer sounds nice, but doesn't apply to a lot of situations. Some folks can't, or won't defend themselves and their property. Some can't even hire it done. If you capture a thief or vandal in the act, who insures that he pays you restitution? Who decides the amount? If you identify a murderer and he gets away, does anybody go after him?

Lots of interesting and worthy ideas in the stuff I've been reading, but it's the day-to-day stuff that sometimes puzzles me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:16 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I refer you to the online graphic novel version of L Neil Smiths "The Probability Broach", technically it's a political treatise, but it's a right good bit of storytelling in it's own right, and it does handle most of these issues, it's a fun read besides, as a bonus.

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=0

If you have any lingering questions after that, I'll be happy to answer em for ya.

Mind that it's more Libertarian than straight Anarchist, but I think it'll answer a lot of it, or at least help you refine the questions.

"Anything is possible if you're free."
-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:38 AM

HKCAVALIER


I would add The Dispossessed by Le Guin to your reading list, though it is perhaps more on the anarcho-communist side of the political spectrum. But definitely emphasizing the anarcho. It's a novel, mostly set in a futuristic anarchist "state." Very interesting. Very, very interesting.

One of the interesting themes which it shares with "The Probability Broach" is an understanding that we won't be getting rid of vengeance and violence, but we won't be dressing it up in robes and calling it "law enforcement" either. If some folks get it in them to enact some street justice, well, that's what happens and the community at large deals with it carefully, fearfully, imperfectly--just as any community in the real world does. Violence is a rupture, but it is no less a part of life.

People want new and untried social systems to solve all of life's problems, but they won't. What I like about anarchism is that it mainly refuses to lie or make up fancy justifications for human aggression. It's real, it often causes problems and it ain't going away--but that doesn't mean it needs to rule our lives.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And once - under anarchy- we've gotten fed up with street gangs and water wars and suchlike, and have developed rules and ways to take care of the massive social unrest we'll be right back with.... government.

I find the whole notion hopelessly naive, and suited only to a system of primitive production.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:53 AM

FLETCH2


Ok the thing that puzzles me is how you deal with none government actors. If Megacorp moves into your community and starts pumping poison into the river outside your school how do you deal with that? A few good-ol-boys grab their second amendment rights and sort it out? What happens when they meet those awfully nice men from Blackstone that Megacorp has hired to run security?

If "justice" is bought with a gun doesn't the guy who can buy the biggest gun win?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I refer you to the online graphic novel version of L Neil Smiths "The Probability Broach", technically it's a political treatise, but it's a right good bit of storytelling in it's own right, and it does handle most of these issues, it's a fun read besides, as a bonus.


L. Neil is one of my triumverate of favorite authors named Smith, along with E.E.(Doc) and Cordwainer. I recommend Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" for another view of non-government in action. I'm familiar with the Broach-verse(to coin a phrase), so I'll frame my questions in terms of that book. (thanks for tipping me off to the graphic novel, BTW)

'Tricky Dick' Milhous breaks into Ed Bear's home and trys to kill Win, but is foiled. Once he makes it out the window, wounded but mobile, and assuming the Hamiltonians hadn't offed him later, what recourse would Win and Ed have had? Milhous is apparently known as a crook, and has remained in circulation for enough time to develop a rep.

Say that during the attempt to abduct Clarissa, she had winged and captured one of her attackers. The CLU takes evidence and there's a trial, but only if both sides agree. What if the captured attacker just stonewalls? Can there be a trial if he has not consented to participate?

I note that the villans in the Broach-verse are usually not that bright, and that the heroes sometimes step outside the "no force" concept in stopping them. Still great reading.





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And then there this example: You get nailed on the freeway (Say, who built the freeway? Who owns it?) by some drunk driver who gets killed.

Somehow. ambulance companies are notified (Don't exactly know how 'cause you're passed out in the front seat, but- what the hell- this is a fantasy) You're whisked away by ambulance that you have no idea where they're taking your, or how good their training is (You're no about to dicker, and anyway, how do you figure out their reputation?) to another mystery provider- the hospital- which could just be a bunch of people who are only looking for body parts. (Because once again you have no idea who they are. You COULD look them up on the internet at your leisure... except, who owns the internet? But unless someone is willing to step in and rate these hospitals you only have their advert to go on.) and then you get billed for them putting your arms and legs back together again. But seeing as there's no insurance, and you weren't exactly in a position to dicker about the price and services you have to come up with a bunch of money. The guy who hit you has zero assets so you can forget about suing. You don't even have the satisfaction of shooting him 'cause he's dead. And now you're disabled for life, and can't do the work you used to much less defend yourself.

People do NOT survive as individuals. They survive as groups by coordinating and cooperating through mechanisms other than the "free market". And then there is the problem of "the commons", which NO market can take into account.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


piddly details ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:02 PM

HKCAVALIER


Signy, all you're doing is plopping anarchy down on top of our existing system and saying: see, it don't work! You remind me of former Secretary Watt's quip, "If you want an example of the failures of socialism, don't go to Russia, come to America and go to the Indian reservations."

Anarchism would not and could not simply impose itself on your life one day. Anarchism is really a pretty alien way of thinking from what we get stuffed down our throats in this country. Have you read The Dispossessed? Le Guin goes into great detail about the childhood and school age years of a boy growing up in an anarchist community. The values instilled in the young are in many ways antithetical to a lot of crap we take absolutely for granted in this country.

Your example of the ambulance ride is a nightmare of impersonal mega-communal living which in an anarchic system could not/would not function. If you actually want to live like insects in a hive, then anarchy would not appeal to you. Communities would be smaller and people would have a much more thorough working knowledge of how the community functions and who to trust and such. Anarchy is a system requiring tremendous personal responsability compared to our entranced consumer culture. Different communities would have a huge database which they shared with other communities, of which you as a citizen would have to have a working knowledge. Imagine if you had the kind of knowledge you have about our elected officials in Washington about the medical practitioners and other professionals in your area. Everyone would have to dabble in all kinds of civic minded avocations--volunteer this, volunteer that--anarchy is not a system for people who want to be left alone to wallow in privileged ignorance--such folks would not fare too well.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:17 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Saying "It doesn't work that way" isn't going to help people understand.

We should take the example step by step.

1) You are struck by a vehicle on the highway (who owns it?)

2) The driver of the other car is killed.

3) You are paralyzed and in critical condition.

What happens next?

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:27 PM

RIGHTEOUS9


I haven't read the dispossesd, but if we are going to reduce the success of a system of anarchy to that of a change in paradigm introduced through some standard philosophy, I have a couple of questions,

how do you have a standard school system or else communal curriculum that imparts a standard philosophy if you choose not to have any standaradized education,for one

and two, if you are going to embrace the possibility that people are culturally influenced in their thinking, then why is a desire to do violence assumed to be so rooted? Couldn't that also be an issue of paradigm, and couldn't that be changed by new embodiment of communal values?

You could say that we have such values now and they do no good, but I'd argue that they are mostly schizzophrenic, even under a government with a somewhat standardized education system.

I will look up the dispossed and the other one mentioned though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


HKC

I realize your post was directed to SignyM - but I wanted to reply.

A lot of what we take for granted in our current lifestyle - roads, cars, computers, the internet - is only possible b/c of large scale capital investment either by business or by government, or usually by both.

I have read The Dispossessed - it's one of my favorite books - but the philosophy and lifestyle LeGuin wrote about are very much different from our current one.

The Dispossessed - and a little thought - forms the basis of my main objection to FremD's preferred vision of the anarchic society - he seems to think it would be just like today - except without government and of course everyone has a gun, with the most important part being everyone has a gun (or three). An anarchic society with everything we have today but without government just isn't a possibility - if only b/c business will create the power structures that will eventually run people. And so there goes the anarchy.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:39 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Basically, what the typical anarchist is talking about is Marxism. Although “anarchy” gets labeled solely “right-wing” in practice breaks down to either dueling warlords or Marxism. The idea behind Marxism is exactly what HK is talking about. Marx‘s utopia was a society of small agrarian communities living in harmony without government or the “consumer culture.” Karl Marx was the original anarchist, so to speak.


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


'Utopia' (Thomas Moore) might also be considered communistic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:55 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Geezer,

A l/a world would very much be like life outside Alliance control. In fact, many libertarians are attracted to the Firefly verse precisely because it depicts a hypothetical libertarian world so well.

It ain't perfect. You gotta stay on your toes, outrun dangerous gangs (be they organized or not), and fight bullies. There are no guarantees, and life really sucks when you are hungry and/or injured.

It's definitely not a lifestyle for everyone. I understand if people don't like this lifestyle, and I wouldn't want to impose it on them. That is one reason I stopped being involved in Libertarian politics. I mean, I vote for the poetry of it, but I have no wish to force onto others what they don't want.


--------------------------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
--Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:02 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"it depicts a hypothetical libertarian world so well"

The probem is, such a society can only exist as a parasite on a larger, non-anarchic society. It depends on that society for high-investment goods - like ships and medicines - that it can't manufacture for itself.

But at least the writers of Firefly figured that out.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:10 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And then there this example: You get nailed on the freeway (Say, who built the freeway? Who owns it?) by some drunk driver who gets killed.


Theoretically:

The freeway was built by the folks who own the freeway, having either bought the property or negotiated a lease agreement with the owners. You pay to use it, just like you pay income and gas taxes to use the government-built freeways.

You do have insurance (you can still contract for most anything), which provides ambulance and medical service to the specifications of your policy. They are vetted by companies (see Consumer Reports and Washington checkbook, but not non-profit) who provide their references for a fee (probably to the insurance company). Those who do badly go out of business.

I'm not sure that death absolves one of liability and the need for compensation in the Libertarian world, so the drunk's estate may be liable. This assumes that there is a function available to determine the driver was drunk. That's also a question.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:12 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If "justice" is bought with a gun doesn't the guy who can buy the biggest gun win?
This is always true, whether you have government or not.

Government is not only the biggest gun, but the only gun. Most political scientists define government as a monopoly of force. America is the only country on earth (correct me if I am wrong) that challenges this monopoly slightly by allowing its citizenry to own as many arms as they want, short of the really powerful ones.

So in other words, if we have to be ruled by a gang with the biggest gun, then we institute a system by which we have some say in who gets to hold that gun.

Thomas Hobbes defined freedom as power in small denominations. I think if you substitute "force" for "power," you get this:

Government = force in large denominations
Lib / Anar = force in small denominations

You also get this corollary:

Government = violence in large denominations
Lib / Anar = violence in small denominations

You get force and violence either way, there is no escaping it. It is just a matter of whether you prefer it all in one package (Alliance) or in little bits (outer planet gangsters).

--------------------------
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
--Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CTS
You still haven't managed to say how the anarchic society can be self-sufficient, except at the most primitive level, which would be the level able to be achieved by very small groups of people.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer

"The freeway was built by the folks who own the freeway, having either bought the property or negotiated a lease agreement with the owners."
How did the original owners get that property ? What keeps multiple people from claiming that property ? Who adjudicates multiple claims (other than roving bands of people with guns, that is) ? What happens when one party unilaterally changes the conditions of the lease - or adds conditions to the sale ? Who maintains the currency used to buy and sell, or lease ?

"You pay to use it, just like you pay income and gas taxes to use the government-built freeways."
Who vetted the information used to create an up-to-spec road ? Who checked the construction ? And most importantly - again - who adjudicates disputes in case of faulty construction ? Who insures that the road is indeed equally open to anyone and that everyone is charged the same price ?

"You do have insurance (you can still contract for most anything), which provides ambulance and medical service to the specifications of your policy."
How do you insure the insurance company WILL pay the claim ? How does that insurance company operate over multiple jurisdictions (for example, out of reach of it's spec'd ambulance service or hospitals) ? Assuming young healthy people don't buy insurance, how do you keep this from devolving into a pay-as-you-go scenario and unaffordable to the unlucky, ill or elderly ?

"They are vetted by companies (see Consumer Reports and Washington checkbook, but not non-profit) who provide their references for a fee (probably to the insurance company). Those who do badly go out of business."
How do you insure the vetters aren't merely sub-units of the insurance company (assuming there is no 'law' saying they have to be independent) ? How do you insure the vetters aren't unintentionally biased toward the companies giving them money ? What keeps the vetters from taking large sums of money to intentionally provide bogus reports to increase their profits (as they are 'for profit' it would be a temptation to inrease profits this way) ? Who researches and develops relevant, impartial and efficient standards ? Who oversees the standards used by the vetters ?

"I'm not sure that death absolves one of liability and the need for compensation in the Libertarian world, so the drunk's estate may be liable."
How does this differ from India where children are sold into servitude to pay off 'family' debt ?

"This assumes that there is a function available to determine the driver was drunk. That's also a question."
This also assumes that driving drunk is considered 'wrong'. How do you assign fault when there is no 'law' saying it's 'wrong' and therefore liable for compensation to the injured party ?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:05 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Anyway, it's more within human nature to congregate and cooperate than it is to isolate and confront (US society notwithstanding - I consider it pathological). Even Socrates believed people came together if only for 'economic' reasons: "I think a city comes to be because none of us is self-sufficient, but we need many things."

Let's say people can effectively interact in a group of 100 (I think that's high, but it's only a rough estimate anyway).

Let's say a society needs roughly 1,000 people in order for people to specialize (I think that's low, but it's for the sake of argument).

Somewhere between 100 and 1,000, new and 'un-natural' ways of relating come into being - ways that aren't formed by the long chain of evolution in small groups.

We can either purposefully seek the best ways of congregating - or we can let them happen by chance, understanding that they are subject to 'initial conditions' and there's nothing naturally 'forbidden' about going down a hellish dead end.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:23 PM

FLETCH2


Actually once specialization evolves there is no putting it back in the box unless you do something like China's cultural revolution. I doubt many doctors make good chicken farmers and probably few would want to. You would end up with people with specific skills that communities would have to find some way of attracting (or perhaps they steal doctors, like those cultists did with Simon?)

The reality will be that those folks with skills that the rest of the community realy on will end up running the place. The communities will end up being run by the guy that has the most land and/or the largest industrial employer, the doctor and the priest.

Even if you force the redistribution of wealth you would still have the problem that those folks that have specialist and rare functions will run things.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:36 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
(Say, who built the freeway? Who owns it?)
The fact that sovereignty goes hand in hand with land ownership is a big obstacle for anarchism (left or right). If I were to build an anarcho-libertarian country, I would make public roads one of the few functions of government. There are other solutions, but none so expedient and simple as public ownership of publically traveled land.

That is another reason why Firefly is such a great model for anarcho-libertarianism. Space travel frees us from the no-sovereighty-without-land dilemma. As long as one owns a running ship (which is not as limited a commodity as land), one has a shot at sovereignty.

God, I love Firefly.

--------------------------
...and we'll never be under the heel of nobody ever again.
--Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Fletch2

Maybe.

Not directly related but I came across this the other day, and it had an interesting connection to a virtually unknown fact.

Scientists wanted to see if bonobos or chimps cooperated better: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308121928.htm
"For example, two bonobos were more likely to both eat when presented with food in a single dish (rather than two separate dishes) than were chimpanzees faced with a similar feeding scenario.
Bonobos also exhibited significantly more sociosexual behavior and play than did chimpanzees under these circumstances. In a related set of experiments, bonobos were found to be better than chimpanzees at cooperating (e.g., by simultaneously pulling a rope) to retrieve food that was not easily divisible--that is, food that might be easily monopolized by one of the two individuals."


This relates to the inadvertent experiment (the unknown fact) Jane Goodall performed when she wanted to entice chimps out in the open - with a big pile of food. She spent weeks observing all sorts of dominance and aggression displays - before she realized that it was unnatural behavior caused by the food being in one spot, and easily dominated by an individual.

Now, I think we humans tell ourselves what we are and so actually form our 'human nature'. Humans are selfish. Humans are violent. Humans are competitive. But there is some native version of us that we start out with - and I'd say we're a lot more like bonobos than chimps. And maybe we should be encouraging our societies to reflect that.

BTW - that isolated village I mentioned in another thread - had some other big strong dudes. But they weren't nasty, they got along with people and did all sorts of Herculean tasks (and stunts) just for the recognition of it. To say people with a specialty will necessarily 'rule' everyone else assumes the opportunistic, cut-throat motivations we actively teach people.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:51 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Now, I think we humans tell ourselves what we are and so actually form our 'human nature'. Humans are selfish. Humans are violent. Humans are competitive. But there is some native version of us that we start out with - and I'd say we're a lot more like bonobos than chimps. And maybe we should be encouraging our societies to reflect that.

"


I'm not sure. In Sweden our company spent a lot of time and money on team building exercises some of which dealt with group dynamics. The conclusion that these courses came to was that in human interactions dominance/submission behavior is the low level "animalistic" parts of our nature and the co-operative response was the learned "higher" response. To use your examples we started out as selfish chimps but as survival required cooperation we learnt more complex cooperative social behavior because it gave us an evolutionary advantage.

When our children grow we "domesticate" them, we teach them the behavior we consider appropriate and the values that we as a group come to expect. I contend that in the absence of that upbringing people will behave selfishly because they don't see other people as being their equals and that in turn limits our in built capacity for empathy. That's also why governments in wartime try to dehumanize the enemy because most humans correctly raised by their group would tend to empathise too much with the enemy.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:53 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Even if you force the redistribution of wealth you would still have the problem that those folks that have specialist and rare functions will run things.
Left-anarchism, or pure communism, strives for the absence of hierarchy. In communism, specialization resulting in more wealth / power would not be possible.

However, right-anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, has no such lofty goals. They are only concerned with absence of institutionalized monopoly of force, or government. They have no problems with some folks having more power/wealth than others.

--------------------------
"My God! The thought of that evil man, loose in London--with money, from God only knows what source--fomenting riot and rebellion during a public emergency--and in control of an Engine-driven press! It's nightmarish!"
-- Gibson-Sterling, "The Difference Engine"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:59 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Even if you force the redistribution of wealth you would still have the problem that those folks that have specialist and rare functions will run things.
Left-anarchism, or pure communism, strives for the absence of hierarchy. In communism, specialization resulting in more wealth / power would not be possible.

However, right-anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, has no such lofty goals. They are only concerned with absence of institutionalized monopoly of force, or government. They have no problems with some folks having more power/wealth than others.



Then I don't understand the point? If the contention is that government has become the instrument of the powerful then how does removing it help if the powerful can still influence things? I want your property? I take it and pay off the police force. Like an extreme form of eminent domain but cheaper for me and even suckier for you.


I have a question. A thief breaks into a house steals the owners gun and uses it to hold him up. Is this the gun's fault or the owners for not keeping it close to hand. Should we ban guns to remove the possibility of the ones we own being used against us or should we just maintain better control of the ones we have?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:02 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Fletch2

You're looking at people brought up in a large, individualistic and competitive society (even in Sweden). But you could look at the !Kung (in their original format, not their 'settled' drug-addled version) with origins thought to be closest to the original human ancestors - nomads who survived based on little more than the mutual goodwill of the members of each group. That and digging sticks.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CTS

money = influence
force = influence

therefore
money = force

That puts your buds - business - in the picture.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:12 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch2

You're looking at people brought up in a large, individualistic and competitive society (even in Sweden). But you could look at the !Kung (in their original format, not their 'settled' drug-addled version) with origins thought to be closest to the original human ancestors - nomads who survived based in little more than the mutual goodwill of the members of each group.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."


How many of those people are blood relations though? My grandmother's maiden name was Newton, where I come from almost everybody is a Newton if you go back more than 3 generations. I have an extended family group like you wouldn't believe, and people do treat family differently from outsiders.

I can quite happily believe high level's of cooperation in small groups, especially if they form an extended family group but I think the underlying dominance dynamic still exists and I'm inclined to believe it's very primitive precisely because cooperation offers so may advantages. Why develop competative/ dominant behavior after a cooperative one is established? In most cases it would be a step backwards and restrict your chances of survival.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And that small-group cooperation pattern is how humans evolved. It's in our blood. The challenge is to construct a society that translates the dynamic to larger groups. Or suffer the consequences.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:34 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Then I don't understand the point? If the contention is that government has become the instrument of the powerful then how does removing it help if the powerful can still influence things?
Right-anarchists don't have a problem with influence; they just have a problem with force. Sometimes there is a thin line between the two. But most times, force uses a gun, and influence doesn't.

Quote:
I want your property? I take it and pay off the police force.
First, in anarchism, there is no "police force" as we know it. There is no "authority" to run to for help. Think Firefly again. They want Mal's property, they have to fight him for it. Sometimes, they succeed without much of a fight; luckily, Mal and his buddies are pretty good at defending themselves, and don't get robbed too often. You survive with a good aim and smarts.

Quote:
I have a question. A thief breaks into a house steals the owners gun and uses it to hold him up. Is this the gun's fault or the owners for not keeping it close to hand. Should we ban guns to remove the possibility of the ones we own being used against us or should we just maintain better control of the ones we have?
Think Mal again. Would he blame the gun?

Joss is a liberal, but he created the quintessential anarcho-libertarian in Mal's character. Mal is a good reference point for all such questions. Frankly, I am duly impressed that Joss et. al. understand libertarianism that well.

--------------------------
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
-- Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:39 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Eagles = birds
Penguins = birds

Therefore eagles = penguins.

--------------------------
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
--Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:42 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Still wondering if you have an answer to the fact that that kind of society can only exist as a parasite on a larger one. Something Joss also figured out.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


BTW it's not a trick question. It takes a lot of investment to make that 'nothing part'. That means a really rich company. Now a really rich company can keep its wealth by investing in good governmental relations - or assuming it's all anarchy - by investing in guns and gun-slingers. And in effect being the force you don't want.

So help me out here. How does this work ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Still didn't answer the question, even tho it was posed a half dozen times. That's OK. I get it. You have no answer so you have to ignore, avoid and distract.

BTW, the if a = b and b = c then a = c thing is basic mathematics (and logic). You have to be careful to choose and make sure that 'a' really does = 'b', and so on, which I did. And which you failed to do. Good luck with the logic thing. You'll need it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So here's the question again for anyone to answer -

How can one make a high investment good (like a space shuttle) in an anarchic society ? In which I might add, there are no large dominating forces, whether public or private, so that people really are individually 'free'.

***************************************************************
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty."

Note there are TWO conditions for anarchy -
a lack of government
absolute individual liberty

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:28 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Withdrawn

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Bumped to see if there will be any quick answers.

As far as I can see, a complex technological society CANNOT be anarchic, by virtue of the economics of large investment.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Before I go - though it may not seem like it, I'm working on playing nicer.

But it's going to mean a few broken crowns during practice.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:28 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Well, you're irritating the hell out of me and I agree with you.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


My ability to alienate ... something or other. You get the drift, I'm sure. I have few talents, but apparently that's one of them.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:20 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Then I don't understand the point? If the contention is that government has become the instrument of the powerful then how does removing it help if the powerful can still influence things?
Right-anarchists don't have a problem with influence; they just have a problem with force. Sometimes there is a thin line between the two. But most times, force uses a gun, and influence doesn't.



We'll get back to this later.




Quote:


Quote:
I have a question. A thief breaks into a house steals the owners gun and uses it to hold him up. Is this the gun's fault or the owners for not keeping it close to hand. Should we ban guns to remove the possibility of the ones we own being used against us or should we just maintain better control of the ones we have?
Think Mal again. Would he blame the gun?



I asked the question for a reason. You see every time the gun debate comes up I hear the same quotes things like

"A gun's just a tool and you don't blame a tool." and "Guns don't kill people it's people that kill people." You could argue that a thief could come into your home, steal a hammer and use it to beat you with. That being the case it would be stupid to ban hammers right? I mean the tool isn't responsible for how it's used. If you had kept that gun close to hand you would have been the guy using it against the thief not the other way around? The gun isn't at fault if you don't control it well enough and allow it to be used against you.

Let us accept that premise, the gun is a tool, the hammer is a tool. Now here's the thing, government is a tool, it was created by the people with the intention of being used for a variety of tasks including defending them, just like that gun was made to be used for defence.

Now if we accept your argument that bad people have taken control of your government and are using it against you then the fault is yours, you should have been more careful with it. You have a weapon (the government) for your self defence and you let a thief take it from you and use it against you. The weapon isn't responsable you are. The irony here is that you probably wouldn't call for a ban on guns just because one could be stolen and used against you and yet here you are arguing just that for the best weapon you have.

I've heard people say that banning guns won't work because all it does is take them out of the hands of honest citizens because the thieves will still have theirs. That's true in this debate too. Any mobster, corporation or lunatic that can get a few hired killers together could rule the roost.

The situation is like having a magnum in your bedside table and being so scared that it might be used to kill you that you get rid of it leaving yourself at the mercy of any punk with a .22.

If you are so convinced that government is being co-opted then take it back. It's your weapon only you are to blame if someone uses it against you.



Quote:




Joss is a liberal, but he created the quintessential anarcho-libertarian in Mal's character. Mal is a good reference point for all such questions. Frankly, I am duly impressed that Joss et. al. understand libertarianism that well.



Mal is a fictional character, the hero of a TV show strangely enough things are set up so he can win. Reality is a little different. In westerns the claim jumper who threatens the rancher and his virtuous family is seen off by John Wayne, or Audie Murphy. In real life guys like that and their families were murdered because no matter how many guns they had in the house a determined man could always buy more....

There was something else

Quote:


Right-anarchists don't have a problem with influence; they just have a problem with force.


What the hell is a "Right-Anarchist?" It sounds like neo-con somebody that wants to purloin an idea he really doesn't really agree with?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:22 PM

HKCAVALIER


Aiyee!

Rue, jeez, don't know what to say. I've never seen you so snarky with someone who isn't an ideological monster or authoritarian lapdog. I think you're comin' down a little ton-of-bricksish on CTS who may simply have a RL > RWED situation going on.

Here's my answer to your parasitism quandary. In the sense that you're using the word, I would say that we are all parasites on the achievements of the past. Perhaps, Marx is correct and human culture is in an evolving, developmental process. Maybe statism as we know it is a phase in human cultural development like adolescence. Unavoidable, but dangerous as all get out if developement stops there. So the corporate culture that a future anarchistic moment would "parasitize" is its own past. Perhaps anarchy would represent a total lack of materialistic, technological progress beyond its point of departure. Maybe humans would live for a millennia or two without wars and without a lot of technological development beyond what we see now. Until there's a social revolution and the anarchic age passes away beneath some future army's heels.

Maybe anarchy wouldn't be the final chapter in human social development; doesn't mean it would be the nightmare that leaps so readily to mind.

Am I the only one that sees a low grade hysteria in the questions/accusations coming from the folks that profess not to "get" anarchy? I guess it's unavoidable to a degree, but I find it fascinating that the very idea of anarchy is such a hot button. It seems to strike a pretty deep chord with all kinds of people.

And I gotta say your syllogism, Rue, doesn't make any more sense to me than it did to CTS. Money is a kind of influence, for there are surely many forms of influence other than money (love, for instance). Same with force; force is only the crudest Newtonian form of influence. Since there are other types of influence besides money and force, then money does not equal force just because they're both a kind of influence.

Rue, what's going on over there?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:25 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I recommend Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" for another view of non-government in action.

I was just gonna plug that, and some of RAH's later work- parts of The Number Of The Beast, The Cat Who Walked Thru Walls, and the some of the other late novels touch on Libertarian ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:32 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
'Utopia' (Thomas Moore) might also be considered communistic.


Not pickin' on YOU, as I have no desire to offend, but so might the society envisioned by the disciples of Jesus Christ. Read the Book of Acts. Also the history of the early brotherhoods-- the Franciscans come to mind...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:42 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The reason why I put that in was b/c sometimes people throw labels around, and I think we're supposed to be distracted and react to the labels. So I put in a label of my own that seemed apropos. Anyway, it seemed like the thing to do.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:44 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
As long as one owns a running ship (which is not as limited a commodity as land), one has a shot at sovereignty.


AS the old cliche has it: " What is a boat? A hole in the water into which you throw money. What is a bigger boat? A bigger hole."

And a space ship would be an even bigger hole. . Witness Mal's recurring troubles with morality and the need to fuel the ship, do maintenance and feed the crew.
He's LUCKY to be scraping by from crime to crime, dealing with folks who diss him and cheat him. Somebody more honest, less brutal, and slightly less lucky would run out of oxygen to breathe and protein to eat, and would wind up either dead or stranded somewhere, unable to afford fuel to boost the ship.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:44 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Now if we accept your argument that bad people have taken control of your government and are using it against you ...
Wait, did I ever argue that?

I think govt is an inherently evil tool, just like some people think guns are inherently evil tools. The issue is, do we ban them only in our own lives, or do we ban them for everyone, whether they like those tools or not?

I used to want to ban govt for everyone, until I realized I had no right to do that. So now I am just trying to figure out how to get it out of my own life.

Quote:
Any mobster, corporation or lunatic that can get a few hired killers together could rule the roost.
Yeah, but you missed the point. They won't have a monopoly on force, like govt has a monopoly. As I said, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics represent force in small denominations vs. the big denominations of govt.

Quote:
The situation is like having a magnum in your bedside table and being so scared that it might be used to kill you that you get rid of it leaving yourself at the mercy of any punk with a .22.
It is more like having a magnum that you know WILL kill you vs. taking your chances with the punk with a .22. (Yeah, the analogy breaks down a bit here, but it's a good one.)

Quote:
In real life guys like that and their families were murdered because no matter how many guns they had in the house a determined man could always buy more....
And "guys like that" can always buy more as well... Yeah, some of those guys died, but some didn't.

Look, govt has always been supported by the argument that you need them to protect yourself from punks, mobsters, corporations, lunatics, etc. IF you can trust the govt to do the protecting that is. What gives govt the magical ability to be exempt from punks, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics? I say, you have to fight punks, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics whether they are in govt or not. I'd rather have them separate than all united under magical umbrella of "authority."

Quote:
What the hell is a "Right-Anarchist?"
Right anarchists are folks who want to distinguish themselves from the original anarchists, the communists. They accept that hierarchy is impossible to abolish, so they simply want to abolish government.

--------------------------
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
--P. J. O'Rourke

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:48 - 4779 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL