SOCAL's Razor

[Husker_x]

First of all, there is absolutely nothing utopian about individuals being allowed to voluntarily make their own decisions/choices, and either benefitting or suffering, as long as those decisions/choices do not infringe upon other individual's property and their ability to do the same. Property rights are a reality, and whether you care to believe it or not, what is utopian is those who believe they can protect and uphold property rights, while at the same time violating them. How misguided and contradictory is that?

 

Secondly, there is so a standard of practice involving the free market and it is that all transactions and agreements are made voluntarily and free of coercion, how could a violation of someone's person or property not constitute a violation of the free market? Since it does, what you describe is not a free market at all, but merely a consequence or result of a controlled market.

 

You claim that black markets are so horrible, yet you fail to realize that the only way they are created is through government regulation. Without arbitrary laws controlling what individuals can put in their own bodies, who they can trade with or what line of work individuals can pursue; most of the violence, irresponsibility and poverty accrued through and a consequence of the black market would tend to dissipate in a free market. Regulation keeps all prices high, whether in the white or black market, and because of this fact, and the fact that higher prices brings about the possibility of higher profits, it is guaranteed that only the most violent and those who are willing to take on risks will flock to the banned and controlled markets. Regardless of this fact, do you not see a difference between a market that violates individual's rights and one that does not? Also, what proof do you have that if government legislation was disbanded that the markets you describe would explode and crime would be rampant?

 

All this is not to say that the sadists, perverts and violent individuals who do and will continue to pursue the ventures you describe will ever be completely stopped. That's impossible because individuals do, AND ALWAYS WILL, have the ability to act irrational, but there are much better, just and logical ways of handling that type of irrational behavior rather then through the employment of a coercive monopoly. There is nothing dishonest, utopian or whimisically wishing about knowing that a problem exists and seeking the best alternative as a solution. Do you really find it necessary and/or beneficial to use violence and theft as a means to solve all ends? Is it not possible that the free market defense/protection/justice markets, ostracization, and the countless of other solutions known to the human mind; could do a more just and efficent job at providing what each individual desires and is voluntarily willing to pursue?

 

Has it ever occured to you that markets such as those for weapons of mass destruction and slavery, both of which are based completely upon the violation of individual's rights and property, could be nullified by those you see it as wrong, meaning ostracizing those who participate, or enforced and regulated much better by a protector or defender of property rights competing with others in a free market? It's simple logic really. Does competition not ensure the best quality of service for the best possible price? Does a monopoly not ensure the worst possible service for the highest possible price? How could markets that require a violation of property rights prosper to the extent they do today if there actually existed voluntary-based, competing entities whose sole purpose and lifeline required that they be stopped? How could a voluntary protection or defense business maintain its existence if it did not do its job and did not satisfy its customers? How is that not a huge difference from a coercive monopoly, one which has zero incentive to stop anything and costs individuals whether they voluntarily choose to participate or not?

 

You say that the non-ability of government to stop crime, produce justice, or fix any problem whatsoever is irrelevant, but how do you figure? If you insist on having a coercive monopoly so that you can pretend that rights are protected, order is restored and crime is curtailed, why is it irrelevant to point out that it absolutely does not do that job? In fact, if anything it actually promotes that which is claims to halt. If you fear that a free market will create and exacerbate the chaos, murder and poverty that already exist, how can you possibly think that suggesting as a solution the biggest murderer, most chaos creating, least prosperous and a coercive monopoly to boot will solve anything? And you say I'm misguided?

 

This is a post directed at me in response to my claim that SOCAL's brand of anarchism is a utopian fantasy. Response below.

[knapplc]

That Occam dude is going to be pissed that you stole his line.

[Husker_x]

First of all, there is absolutely nothing utopian about individuals being allowed to voluntarily make their own decisions/choices, and either benefitting or suffering, as long as those decisions/choices do not infringe upon other individual's property and their ability to do the same. Property rights are a reality, and whether you care to believe it or not, what is utopian is those who believe they can protect and uphold property rights, while at the same time violating them. How misguided and contradictory is that?

 

Secondly, there is so a standard of practice involving the free market and it is that all transactions and agreements are made voluntarily and free of coercion, how could a violation of someone's person or property not constitute a violation of the free market? Since it does, what you describe is not a free market at all, but merely a consequence or result of a controlled market.

 

You claim that black markets are so horrible, yet you fail to realize that the only way they are created is through government regulation.Without arbitrary laws controlling what individuals can put in their own bodies, who they can trade with or what line of work individuals can pursue; most of the violence, irresponsibility and poverty accrued through and a consequence of the black market would tend to dissipate in a free market. Regulation keeps all prices high, whether in the white or black market, and because of this fact, and the fact that higher prices brings about the possibility of higher profits, it is guaranteed that only the most violent and those who are willing to take on risks will flock to the banned and controlled markets. Regardless of this fact, do you not see a difference between a market that violates individual's rights and one that does not? Also, what proof do you have that if government legislation was disbanded that the markets you describe would explode and crime would be rampant?

 

All this is not to say that the sadists, perverts and violent individuals who do and will continue to pursue the ventures you describe will ever be completely stopped. That's impossible because individuals do, AND ALWAYS WILL, have the ability to act irrational, but there are much better, just and logical ways of handling that type of irrational behavior rather then through the employment of a coercive monopoly. There is nothing dishonest, utopian or whimisically wishing about knowing that a problem exists and seeking the best alternative as a solution. Do you really find it necessary and/or beneficial to use violence and theft as a means to solve all ends? Is it not possible that the free market defense/protection/justice markets, ostracization, and the countless of other solutions known to the human mind; could do a more just and efficent job at providing what each individual desires and is voluntarily willing to pursue?

 

Has it ever occured to you that markets such as those for weapons of mass destruction and slavery, both of which are based completely upon the violation of individual's rights and property, could be nullified by those you see it as wrong, meaning ostracizing those who participate, or enforced and regulated much better by a protector or defender of property rights competing with others in a free market? It's simple logic really. Does competition not ensure the best quality of service for the best possible price? Does a monopoly not ensure the worst possible service for the highest possible price? How could markets that require a violation of property rights prosper to the extent they do today if there actually existed voluntary-based, competing entities whose sole purpose and lifeline required that they be stopped? How could a voluntary protection or defense business maintain its existence if it did not do its job and did not satisfy its customers? How is that not a huge difference from a coercive monopoly, one which has zero incentive to stop anything and costs individuals whether they voluntarily choose to participate or not?

 

You say that the non-ability of government to stop crime, produce justice, or fix any problem whatsoever is irrelevant, but how do you figure? If you insist on having a coercive monopoly so that you can pretend that rights are protected, order is restored and crime is curtailed, why is it irrelevant to point out that it absolutely does not do that job? In fact, if anything it actually promotes that which is claims to halt. If you fear that a free market will create and exacerbate the chaos, murder and poverty that already exist, how can you possibly think that suggesting as a solution the biggest murderer, most chaos creating, least prosperous and a coercive monopoly to boot will solve anything? And you say I'm misguided?

 

The sad reality is while the deluge tactic of debate may look effective to the unsuspecting, I really don't need to go further than your first sentence to dismiss the March of the Straw Men that follows. Saying that there is nothing utopian about your position when all it takes to arrive at it is that people never infringe on anyone else's rights is a lot like saying there's nothing religious about religion. The entire point your opponents continually make is that your entire system breaks down as soon as people behave like real people. I'll be the first to admit that government-free anarchy is the ideal way I would have the world. But in the tradition of Thomas Paine, I agree that society (or free markets) are produced by our wants; I also believe that government is necessary because of our wickedness.

 

Which brings us to the black market issue and the second bolded point. My question is so what? Yes, black markets only exist under this name because they sell illegal products. And some products should be illegal. Unless you think that private citizens should have the right to possess nuclear weapons or buy children as sex toys, eventually you're going to come to a position where force will need to be used against individuals that do think it's their right. You want to ostracize them through free market principles? Again you miss the entire point of the argument, which is that free markets can and do cater to evil desires as well as good ones. In all likelihood nothing would happen to the pedophiles except that they'd have to band together in their own communities for economic and social support, and the children they've bought and sold through a free slave market somewhere else will cater to them. You must necessarily assume that all immoral markets will be marginalized as much as they are under our government, which is why I hold that your views are utopian. Our laws against possessing WMDs, slaves, or having sex with children are not arbitrary. They exist for good and moral reasons, and thankfully aren't left up to people's individual judgement.

 

To the question about government disbanding having an impact on crime. Look no further than New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, where theft and violence were rampant in the absence of an effective police force. People's property rights and personal rights were completely discarded by a mobocracy of looters and criminals. A similar situation happened in Montreal, Canada in 1969 when the police in that city went on strike. Again, murder, theft, and chaos exploded that very morning.

 

To the bolded point in the second to last paragraph. By force. I illustrated an example in another thread which was taken from mafioso tactics used every day. Your response is more theoretical hypothesizing.

 

Lastly, I was starting to wonder if it was fall and you were in the business of selling straw men. I never said that government doesn't curtail crime or produce justice. I only ever said it doesn't do it perfectly because our government doesn't exist in your utopia. But it does stop crimes, or punish them after they've happened. It does offer us a legal system which allows us to seek justice. And it does train, equip, and maintain a police force which is constantly interfering with criminal activity in every state.

 

In conclusion, I maintain that you are a utopian because you won't accept the burden of proof for your ideal society. Attacking the flaws in various governments doesn't leave us with your absence of them as the best alternative. The very fact that black markets routinely descend into violence and misery ought to be enough to dissuade people from your view. Also since you claim that people living in an anarchy should or will respect others personal and property rights without ever explaining a reasonable mechanism by which they're sure to do so, there's really nothing to your worldview. It's the Krispy Kream of politics. It sure looks tasty enough, but it's nothing but empty calories.

[Enhance]

This is definitely one of those topics I will not be giving my $.02 on lol.

[SOCALHUSKER]

First of all, there is absolutely nothing utopian about individuals being allowed to voluntarily make their own decisions/choices, and either benefitting or suffering, as long as those decisions/choices do not infringe upon other individual's property and their ability to do the same.

 

The key word is "allowed." Nobody thinks it's a Utopian fantasy to allow people to make their own decisions and choices. What is pure fantasy is expecting everyone to make choices that do not, as you say, " do not infringe upon other individual's property and their ability to do the same."

 

You allow that "… sadists, perverts and violent individuals who do and will continue to pursue the ventures you describe will (n)ever be completely stopped." Yet you fail to follow that to its logical conclusion, that there are times when banding together to prevent being overrun by bands of these very people is necessary. That "banding together" requires organization, which is governance. You acknowledge everything up to the word "governance" because it doesn't suit your argument, but it's the reality that mankind has come up against from beyond recorded history.

 

You continually advocate for no government, and that's simply not possible. What everyone else is saying is that we need lessgovernment, and that is wholly rational.

Are you admitting that you can't make decisions and choices that don't infringe upon other people's property? Or is it that you simply think it's ok to initiate violence and theft against others to accomplish whatever it is that YOU want? Are no other solutions plausible? If not, why can't just anybody infringe upon your property without suffering the consequences, but the government is allowed to steal and kill with no regard for anybody? Do you really believe its "fantasy" to expect individuals to do things that most people already do to begin with? Or do you consider it simply impossible to hold people accountable for their actions? If so, why even have a government if people are so wretched that they can't be held accountable and will kill and steal no matter what? Doesn't government merely consist of those same wretched individuals?

 

And as far as protecting oneself or one's community, I didn't say that individuals could not band together to defend against right's violators, only that the collective must be voluntary. Last time I checked government is not voluntary. Can you not comprehend the difference between me voluntarily paying for protection or having money extorted from me in the name of so-called "protection?" Is the latter not contradictory?

 

Once again, why is a lack of government not possible? Is it simply beyond your imagination to solve a problem without initiaing violence and theft against others? Or is it simply easier to claim things impossible without actually thinking about them? You claim limited government is "wholly" rational but since when has advocating the initiation of theft and violence, even minimally, been considered rational?

[SOCALHUSKER]

First of all, there is absolutely nothing utopian about individuals being allowed to voluntarily make their own decisions/choices, and either benefitting or suffering, as long as those decisions/choices do not infringe upon other individual's property and their ability to do the same. Property rights are a reality, and whether you care to believe it or not, what is utopian is those who believe they can protect and uphold property rights, while at the same time violating them. How misguided and contradictory is that?

 

Secondly, there is so a standard of practice involving the free market and it is that all transactions and agreements are made voluntarily and free of coercion, how could a violation of someone's person or property not constitute a violation of the free market? Since it does, what you describe is not a free market at all, but merely a consequence or result of a controlled market.

 

You claim that black markets are so horrible, yet you fail to realize that the only way they are created is through government regulation.Without arbitrary laws controlling what individuals can put in their own bodies, who they can trade with or what line of work individuals can pursue; most of the violence, irresponsibility and poverty accrued through and a consequence of the black market would tend to dissipate in a free market. Regulation keeps all prices high, whether in the white or black market, and because of this fact, and the fact that higher prices brings about the possibility of higher profits, it is guaranteed that only the most violent and those who are willing to take on risks will flock to the banned and controlled markets. Regardless of this fact, do you not see a difference between a market that violates individual's rights and one that does not? Also, what proof do you have that if government legislation was disbanded that the markets you describe would explode and crime would be rampant?

 

All this is not to say that the sadists, perverts and violent individuals who do and will continue to pursue the ventures you describe will ever be completely stopped. That's impossible because individuals do, AND ALWAYS WILL, have the ability to act irrational, but there are much better, just and logical ways of handling that type of irrational behavior rather then through the employment of a coercive monopoly. There is nothing dishonest, utopian or whimisically wishing about knowing that a problem exists and seeking the best alternative as a solution. Do you really find it necessary and/or beneficial to use violence and theft as a means to solve all ends? Is it not possible that the free market defense/protection/justice markets, ostracization, and the countless of other solutions known to the human mind; could do a more just and efficent job at providing what each individual desires and is voluntarily willing to pursue?

 

Has it ever occured to you that markets such as those for weapons of mass destruction and slavery, both of which are based completely upon the violation of individual's rights and property, could be nullified by those you see it as wrong, meaning ostracizing those who participate, or enforced and regulated much better by a protector or defender of property rights competing with others in a free market? It's simple logic really. Does competition not ensure the best quality of service for the best possible price? Does a monopoly not ensure the worst possible service for the highest possible price? How could markets that require a violation of property rights prosper to the extent they do today if there actually existed voluntary-based, competing entities whose sole purpose and lifeline required that they be stopped? How could a voluntary protection or defense business maintain its existence if it did not do its job and did not satisfy its customers? How is that not a huge difference from a coercive monopoly, one which has zero incentive to stop anything and costs individuals whether they voluntarily choose to participate or not?

 

You say that the non-ability of government to stop crime, produce justice, or fix any problem whatsoever is irrelevant, but how do you figure? If you insist on having a coercive monopoly so that you can pretend that rights are protected, order is restored and crime is curtailed, why is it irrelevant to point out that it absolutely does not do that job? In fact, if anything it actually promotes that which is claims to halt. If you fear that a free market will create and exacerbate the chaos, murder and poverty that already exist, how can you possibly think that suggesting as a solution the biggest murderer, most chaos creating, least prosperous and a coercive monopoly to boot will solve anything? And you say I'm misguided?

 

The sad reality is while the deluge tactic of debate may look effective to the unsuspecting, I really don't need to go further than your first sentence to dismiss the March of the Straw Men that follows. Saying that there is nothing utopian about your position when all it takes to arrive at it is that people never infringe on anyone else's rights is a lot like saying there's nothing religious about religion. The entire point your opponents continually make is that your entire system breaks down as soon as people behave like real people. I'll be the first to admit that government-free anarchy is the ideal way I would have the world. But in the tradition of Thomas Paine, I agree that society (or free markets) are produced by our wants; I also believe that government is necessary because of our wickedness.

 

Which brings us to the black market issue and the second bolded point. My question is so what? Yes, black markets only exist under this name because they sell illegal products. And some products should be illegal. Unless you think that private citizens should have the right to possess nuclear weapons or buy children as sex toys, eventually you're going to come to a position where force will need to be used against individuals that do think it's their right. You want to ostracize them through free market principles? Again you miss the entire point of the argument, which is that free markets can and do cater to evil desires as well as good ones. In all likelihood nothing would happen to the pedophiles except that they'd have to band together in their own communities for economic and social support, and the children they've bought and sold through a free slave market somewhere else will cater to them. You must necessarily assume that all immoral markets will be marginalized as much as they are under our government, which is why I hold that your views are utopian. Our laws against possessing WMDs, slaves, or having sex with children are not arbitrary. They exist for good and moral reasons, and thankfully aren't left up to people's individual judgement.

 

To the question about government disbanding having an impact on crime. Look no further than New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, where theft and violence were rampant in the absence of an effective police force. People's property rights and personal rights were completely discarded by a mobocracy of looters and criminals. A similar situation happened in Montreal, Canada in 1969 when the police in that city went on strike. Again, murder, theft, and chaos exploded that very morning.

 

To the bolded point in the second to last paragraph. By force. I illustrated an example in another thread which was taken from mafioso tactics used every day. Your response is more theoretical hypothesizing.

 

Lastly, I was starting to wonder if it was fall and you were in the business of selling straw men. I never said that government doesn't curtail crime or produce justice. I only ever said it doesn't do it perfectly because our government doesn't exist in your utopia. But it does stop crimes, or punish them after they've happened. It does offer us a legal system which allows us to seek justice. And it does train, equip, and maintain a police force which is constantly interfering with criminal activity in every state.

 

In conclusion, I maintain that you are a utopian because you won't accept the burden of proof for your ideal society. Attacking the flaws in various governments doesn't leave us with your absence of them as the best alternative. The very fact that black markets routinely descend into violence and misery ought to be enough to dissuade people from your view. Also since you claim that people living in an anarchy should or will respect others personal and property rights without ever explaining a reasonable mechanism by which they're sure to do so, there's really nothing to your worldview. It's the Krispy Kream of politics. It sure looks tasty enough, but it's nothing but empty calories.

First of all you need to learn the correct definition of a straw man. I have neither misrepresented your position, which is simply the advocation of a coercive monopoly on theft and violence, nor have I failed to refute your claims about anarchy as it pertains to reality. Rather, the fact that you cannot and refuse to refute the contradictions and illogical thinking that I point out and instead simply attempt to smear them with false calls of a fallacy proves that this is no longer a logical or fact based debate, but instead one hinged on your subjective opinion, false dichotomies and nothing else.

 

Besides that, I have a couple of questions.

 

How does anarchy breakdown when individuals are actually held accountable for their actions? You seem to disregard the fact that protection and every other business operating in a free market only survives through volutary payment from satisfied customers. How then can a protection business survive if they don't provide protection? Also, what keeps individuals countries, which all operate in a state of anarchy today, from breaking down?

 

You also seem to have a hard time distiguishing between a market that consist of smoking, snorting, selling pot/coke/heroine/whatever, one which the participants would violate no one, and a market of slavery, which is based entirely upon the violation of another individuals rights. Is there not a difference? Since there is, how can you claim that legislation is not arbitrary and is not simply based upon someone's subjective opinion of what is right or wrong?

 

You say, that pedophiles will "band together in their own communities for economic and social support, and the children they've bought and sold through a free slave market somewhere else will cater to them." Do you really believe that it's not a violation of those children's rights to be taken? That no one would have defense or protection? That the rest of society would simply stand by and that no free market defense company would likely try as hard as they could, which is how profits are made, to disband the pedophiles and return the children? Seriously, your economics and awareness of property rights is quite lacking on this argument.

 

Do you really want to equate the failures of Katrina, or any other government-caused mayhem, with anarchy? I have a hard time comprehending and undertsanding how one look at the complete failure of government, especially when its as plain as day, yet still suggets that what is occuring is anarchy. Maybe read here or here and explain that to me again?

 

And as for the rest of your rhetoric, while clever and witty, you still have not answered any of my questions. You claim that anarchy is simply "empty calories," yet when presented with the contradictions and immorality of government, it is you who presents nothing more than examples of false dichotomies, subjective opinions and claims of fallicious tactics. Until you're willing to come to grips with that, and maybe be truthful with yourself all I can say is have a good one!!

[knapplc]

It has nothing to do with imagination, SOCAL. I can imagine quite a bit. What I'm talking about isn't imaginary, though, it's real people acting the way real people act. You admit that people would have to "band together" to protect themselves or their community. Who organizes that? Who is in charge of that? Because if you really think people will just come together without any kind of organization and effectively stave off organized assault, you're back in a fantasy. And that organization is the nucleus of government. It is an act of governing.

 

And you keep stepping right into the mess. Next you say, "Do you really believe its "fantasy" to expect individuals to do things that most people already do to begin with? Or do you consider it simply impossible to hold people accountable for their actions?" We're not worried about "most people." We're worried about those few fringe people who can't live in a Utopia. Criminals make up a small percentage of our population, yet we still pay police to patrol our streets.

 

You ask "Why is lack of government not possible" like it's a valid question. It's not. Every society in the history of man has had some form of heirarchy, some form of government. It's what humans do - they order their world. It's like asking, "Why is lack of home not possible?" Every human instinctively creates a home, whether that be a tent, a cave, a house, a stretch of sidewalk, or a palace. It's a basic human action. Failing to understand that makes me wonder if you're serious about this conversation at all.

 

Finally, you keep beating this same drum that government is inherently based on "theft and violence" without ever proving it to be true. Repeating a phrase ad nauseum doesn't make it more true. I'll prove it to you. Anarchy is hippopotamus applesauce. That's my new phrase. Perhaps if I include it in every post, you'll come to realize it's true.

[Husker_x]

 

First of all you need to learn the correct definition of a straw man. I have neither misrepresented your position, which is simply the advocation of a coercive monopoly on theft and violence, nor have I failed to refute your claims about anarchy as it pertains to reality. Rather, the fact that you cannot and refuse to refute the contradictions and illogical thinking that I point out and instead simply attempt to smear them with false calls of a fallacy proves that this is no longer a logical or fact based debate, but instead one hinged on your subjective opinion, false dichotomies and nothing else.

 

Besides that, I have a couple of questions.

 

How does anarchy breakdown when individuals are actually held accountable for their actions? You seem to disregard the fact that protection and every other business operating in a free market only survives through volutary payment from satisfied customers. How then can a protection business survive if they don't provide protection? Also, what keeps individuals countries, which all operate in a state of anarchy today, from breaking down?

 

You also seem to have a hard time distiguishing between a market that consist of smoking, snorting, selling pot/coke/heroine/whatever, one which the participants would violate no one, and a market of slavery, which is based entirely upon the violation of another individuals rights. Is there not a difference? Since there is, how can you claim that legislation is not arbitrary and is not simply based upon someone's subjective opinion of what is right or wrong?

 

You say, that pedophiles will "band together in their own communities for economic and social support, and the children they've bought and sold through a free slave market somewhere else will cater to them." Do you really believe that it's not a violation of those children's rights to be taken? That no one would have defense or protection? That the rest of society would simply stand by and that no free market defense company would likely try as hard as they could, which is how profits are made, to disband the pedophiles and return the children? Seriously, your economics and awareness of property rights is quite lacking on this argument.

 

Do you really want to equate the failures of Katrina, or any other government-caused mayhem, with anarchy? I have a hard time comprehending and undertsanding how one look at the complete failure of government, especially when its as plain as day, yet still suggets that what is occuring is anarchy. Maybe read here or here and explain that to me again?

 

And as for the rest of your rhetoric, while clever and witty, you still have not answered any of my questions. You claim that anarchy is simply "empty calories," yet when presented with the contradictions and immorality of government, it is you who presents nothing more than examples of false dichotomies, subjective opinions and claims of fallicious tactics. Until you're willing to come to grips with that, and maybe be truthful with yourself all I can say is have a good one!!

 

The irony in the first paragraph was so amazing that I nearly had an aneurism. I'm assuming you were still wearing your educational hat when you were presenting my position on government, because it was one of the better examples of a straw man argument I've seen. To define every form of government as a monopoly on theft and violence is a sad mischaracterization which really bears no response. Yet I will again point out that there is nothing––again, nothing––within anarchy that could prevent a monopoly of force from springing up. By definition this is the case, as if one company, say a defense contractor, were to beat out all of his competitors––viola, now we have a true monopoly. As to the fact-based snake oil, go on peddling. I've given you extrapolations of criminal organizations operating every day all over the world. Organizations which are routinely interrupted or crushed by governmental agencies.

 

Now, your questions.

 

Your first question is based upon a false premise, namely that in an anarchy there is no mechanism whatever that makes people accountable for their actions. You've been given repeated examples, including my defense contractor who strong arms the poor butcher. Simply repeating 'free market solutions' a hundred times doesn't make them magically appear, and neither does it actually respond to the substantive arguments of your critics. Satisfying customers IS NOT the only way a business can survive: there are also options of threats, intimidation, murder and theft. In addition to being well versed on the difference between victimless 'crimes' and actual crimes, I also realize that yes, taking children as slaves would be a violation of their personal rights. Yet to call this supposed 'clarification' an actual argument is stunning. My case, SOCAL, is that there are people in this world who do not care about your personal rights or your property rights. Since you have literally no means of establishing these things as the law of the land in anarchy, I've just removed the bottom piece in your tumbling Jenga tower.

 

Your answer as to how an anarchist society would respond to crime is scarily Obamaesque. "Well, we hope the free market will change the situation." Yet your philosophical assurances and weary posturing on the virtue of self-ownership and free trade ring hollow. Human nature is human nature. Your position requires me to believe that people will not only be able to afford the justice or safety being offered privately for a fee, but also knowledgeable enough about the goings-on of their various contractors that such market pressure could be relied on. But unlike our constitution where government ultimately answers to the people, these hypothetical defense businesses (assuming one hasn't already beaten out the rest) answer to no one. If they decide to quit trying to please their customers and instead start extorting them, well tough sh#t, eh comrade?

 

I'm guessing you meant to cede the point on Katrina and Montreal. The absence of government is the definition of anarchy. The results were instructive.

 

The difference between you and me isn't that large. I'm willing to walk with you when you advocate the legalization of drugs and prostitution––this will eliminate huge bastions of crime and restore the rights of citizens. I'm willing to walk with you when you say we need less government. Where I stop, however, is the place where you plunge off the cliff and imagine yourself landing in the Lollipop King's magical forest with cupcake mountains and rivers of caramel. I've seen one too many examples of street justice and mobocracy.

[carlfense]

Having been down this road already . . .

 

[knapplc]

The difference between you and me isn't that large.

Yes.

 

I'm willing to walk with you when you advocate the legalization of drugs and prostitution––this will eliminate huge bastions of crime and restore the rights of citizens.

Agreed.

 

I'm willing to walk with you when you say we need less government.

Very much agreed.

 

Where I stop, however, is the place where you plunge off the cliff and imagine yourself landing in the Lollipop King's magical forest with cupcake mountains and rivers of caramel. I've seen one too many examples of street justice and mobocracy.

 

 

By all that is both good and evil in Darth Vader, YES!

[Enhance]

Once again, why is a lack of government not possible? Is it simply beyond your imagination to solve a problem without initiaing violence and theft against others? Or is it simply easier to claim things impossible without actually thinking about them? You claim limited government is "wholly" rational but since when has advocating the initiation of theft and violence, even minimally, been considered rational?

If I may...

 

A lack of government is impossible if you want to live a free life. America is the most "free" nation in the world. You do almost anything and say almost anything without any repercussions. Sure, we have rules and laws to regulate just how far you can go; but for the most part, it's a free society. Now, you could say that you would obviously live a free life without government, because then nobody would be telling you what to do. But there are only two outcomes for this either A) everything falls into chaos or B ) another government will take over.

 

If one government fails, another "government" will always step in and seize control. It may not be the type of government we are used to, but if a bunch of pirates floated over to America and seized control, they would be our government. Or, more or less, the governing body that is responsible for the way we live our lives, the taxes we pay, the protection we get, etc. etc. There will always be some form of hierarchy. It is impossible for billions of people to co-exist without some sort of leadership, which is why Knapplc's limited governemt is wholly rational. Limited government is about as far as you can go before the world falls into chaos.

 

Besides, in some situations, thievery is warranted. But, not thievery in the sense of stealing inanimate objects. IMHO, thievery covers a lot of things...things like theft of life, theft of love, theft of allegiance, etc. Killing is, in one form or another, theft. In the 1940's, Japan stole the lives of many Americans and stole our feeling of safety with the Pearl Harbor attacks. In the act of protecting our home and protecting the world as a whole from tyrannical leadership, we traveled overseas and stole the lives of Axis powers so that our way of life couldn't be changed. So, as I said, thievery is in some cases necessary.

 

**I'm going to post this in the other thread that pertains to this topic.**

[Enhance]

Ok..so I lied. Here is my two cents in response to what SOCAL had in the other thread.

 

Once again, why is a lack of government not possible? Is it simply beyond your imagination to solve a problem without initiaing violence and theft against others? Or is it simply easier to claim things impossible without actually thinking about them? You claim limited government is "wholly" rational but since when has advocating the initiation of theft and violence, even minimally, been considered rational?

If I may...

 

A lack of government is impossible if you want to live a free life. America is the most "free" nation in the world. You do almost anything and say almost anything without any repercussions. Sure, we have rules and laws to regulate just how far you can go; but for the most part, it's a free society. Now, you could say that you would obviously live a free life without government, because then nobody would be telling you what to do. But there are only two outcomes for this either A) everything falls into chaos or B ) another government will take over.

 

If one government fails, another "government" will always step in and seize control. It may not be the type of government we are used to, but if a bunch of pirates floated over to America and seized control, they would be our government. Or, more or less, the governing body that is responsible for the way we live our lives, the taxes we pay, the protection we get, etc. etc. There will always be some form of hierarchy. It is impossible for billions of people to co-exist without some sort of leadership, which is why Knapplc's limited governemt is wholly rational. Limited government is about as far as you can go before the world falls into chaos.

 

Besides, in some situations, thievery is warranted. But, not thievery in the sense of stealing inanimate objects. IMHO, thievery covers a lot of things...things like theft of life, theft of love, theft of allegiance, etc. Killing is, in one form or another, theft. In the 1940's, Japan stole the lives of many Americans and stole our feeling of safety with the Pearl Harbor attacks. In the act of protecting our home and protecting the world as a whole from tyrannical leadership, we traveled overseas and stole the lives of Axis powers so that our way of life couldn't be changed. So, as I said, thievery is in some cases necessary.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The irony in the first paragraph was so amazing that I nearly had an aneurism. I'm assuming you were still wearing your educational hat when you were presenting my position on government, because it was one of the better examples of a straw man argument I've seen. To define every form of government as a monopoly on theft and violence is a sad mischaracterization which really bears no response. Yet I will again point out that there is nothing––again, nothing––within anarchy that could prevent a monopoly of force from springing up. By definition this is the case, as if one company, say a defense contractor, were to beat out all of his competitors––viola, now we have a true monopoly. As to the fact-based snake oil, go on peddling. I've given you extrapolations of criminal organizations operating every day all over the world. Organizations which are routinely interrupted or crushed by governmental agencies.

Wrong, every government is, by definition, a coercive monopoly on theft and violence. If not, it would simply be just another business competing for customers in the protection, judicial, education, and healthcare market and subject to the laws of supply and demand. However, we both know that is simply not true, so to state otherwise is to either be lying or truly ignorant. Either way, both bear witness to how truly well the government's propaganda has worked to blind and confuse the masses.

 

Let's break down the definition to simplify it for you. How do you believe government is funded? Are taxes voluntary? Since they absolutely are not, the government not only steals but is coercive in the sense that it threatens you with violence if you refuse to be stolen from. Try to protect yourself and your property and see if violence is not used. Since we have narrowed down the definition to a coercive thief, we then ask if the government allows any competition. Since it does not, we can simply and factually state that government is a coercive monopoly on theft and violence. Care to disagree still? If so, please provide an example of a government that is not.

 

Now, your questions.

 

Your first question is based upon a false premise, namely that in an anarchy there is no mechanism whatever that makes people accountable for their actions. You've been given repeated examples, including my defense contractor who strong arms the poor butcher. Simply repeating 'free market solutions' a hundred times doesn't make them magically appear, and neither does it actually respond to the substantive arguments of your critics. Satisfying customers IS NOT the only way a business can survive: there are also options of threats, intimidation, murder and theft. In addition to being well versed on the difference between victimless 'crimes' and actual crimes, I also realize that yes, taking children as slaves would be a violation of their personal rights. Yet to call this supposed 'clarification' an actual argument is stunning. My case, SOCAL, is that there are people in this world who do not care about your personal rights or your property rights. Since you have literally no means of establishing these things as the law of the land in anarchy, I've just removed the bottom piece in your tumbling Jenga tower.{

 

Do you know what the basis for law is? The basis for anarchist law, as it also is for any non-contradictory law in society, is natural law. Libertarian philosophy is based upon natural law and is quite a simple standard for holding people accountable. The "mechanism" for holding people accountable is not quite as simple, but using the guidelines of natural law and assuming a demand, which individuals such as yourself are sure to provide, the market does provide services. It does not just magically appear, as you suggest, but I have neither the time nor the patience to explain the workings of the free market to you again. Quite simply, demand and the profit motive ensures those willing to take a risk will invest. Human nature assures us that individuals make decisions based on their own self interest and for their own benefit. Because this is true, supply will exist. Also, you claim that businesses can coerce, murder or steal to stay in business but how do you figure that will happen in a free market, one without government favors, legislation, subsidies, tariffs, taxes or other regulation that serve to stymy competition. How can a business keep customers and not create devastating competition in a free market if it resorted to the tactics you describe? Do you really believe the ludicrous examples you spew. If so, you have a lot to learn about economics and specifically the free market.

 

Your answer as to how an anarchist society would respond to crime is scarily Obamaesque. "Well, we hope the free market will change the situation." Yet your philosophical assurances and weary posturing on the virtue of self-ownership and free trade ring hollow. Human nature is human nature. Your position requires me to believe that people will not only be able to afford the justice or safety being offered privately for a fee, but also knowledgeable enough about the goings-on of their various contractors that such market pressure could be relied on. But unlike our constitution where government ultimately answers to the people, these hypothetical defense businesses (assuming one hasn't already beaten out the rest) answer to no one. If they decide to quit trying to please their customers and instead start extorting them, well tough sh#t, eh comrade?

 

How's that Constitution working out for you?

 

I'm guessing you meant to cede the point on Katrina and Montreal. The absence of government is the definition of anarchy. The results were instructive.

How do you figure Katrina and Montreal were a lack of government? I haven't researched Montreal at all, but Katrina was by far one of the biggest bungles of government intervention in the history of the US, maybe second to only the Great Depression. It's laughable that you can equate that to anarchy, especially when the government was the ones confiscating the guns, imposing martial law, turning away charity, and pretty much becoming the icing on the clusterf@ck cake. Go reread you history if you think that was anarchy.

 

The difference between you and me isn't that large. I'm willing to walk with you when you advocate the legalization of drugs and prostitution––this will eliminate huge bastions of crime and restore the rights of citizens. I'm willing to walk with you when you say we need less government. Where I stop, however, is the place where you plunge off the cliff and imagine yourself landing in the Lollipop King's magical forest with cupcake mountains and rivers of caramel. I've seen one too many examples of street justice and mobocracy.

Maybe the difference between us is not much to you, but when I hear or read that someone advocates theft and violence against other individuals, which you do, I draw the line. You may try to claim that you don't support either but if you support government, no matter which one it is, you support both. You can make fun, criticize or name call all you want but the bottom line is that you have yet to point out a contradiction in my philosophy, you have yet to provide a logical or moral justification for the theft and violence you support and you definitely have not proven that anything you say about economics or government planning is anywhere nearly as efficient or fair as the free market.

[Husker_x]

The irony in the first paragraph was so amazing that I nearly had an aneurism. I'm assuming you were still wearing your educational hat when you were presenting my position on government, because it was one of the better examples of a straw man argument I've seen. To define every form of government as a monopoly on theft and violence is a sad mischaracterization which really bears no response. Yet I will again point out that there is nothing––again, nothing––within anarchy that could prevent a monopoly of force from springing up. By definition this is the case, as if one company, say a defense contractor, were to beat out all of his competitors––viola, now we have a true monopoly. As to the fact-based snake oil, go on peddling. I've given you extrapolations of criminal organizations operating every day all over the world. Organizations which are routinely interrupted or crushed by governmental agencies.

Wrong, every government is, by definition, a coercive monopoly on theft and violence. If not, it would simply be just another business competing for customers in the protection, judicial, education, and healthcare market and subject to the laws of supply and demand. However, we both know that is simply not true, so to state otherwise is to either be lying or truly ignorant. Either way, both bear witness to how truly well the government's propaganda has worked to blind and confuse the masses.

 

Let's break down the definition to simplify it for you. How do you believe government is funded? Are taxes voluntary? Since they absolutely are not, the government not only steals but is coercive in the sense that it threatens you with violence if you refuse to be stolen from. Try to protect yourself and your property and see if violence is not used. Since we have narrowed down the definition to a coercive thief, we then ask if the government allows any competition. Since it does not, we can simply and factually state that government is a coercive monopoly on theft and violence. Care to disagree still? If so, please provide an example of a government that is not.

 

Now, your questions.

 

Your first question is based upon a false premise, namely that in an anarchy there is no mechanism whatever that makes people accountable for their actions. You've been given repeated examples, including my defense contractor who strong arms the poor butcher. Simply repeating 'free market solutions' a hundred times doesn't make them magically appear, and neither does it actually respond to the substantive arguments of your critics. Satisfying customers IS NOT the only way a business can survive: there are also options of threats, intimidation, murder and theft. In addition to being well versed on the difference between victimless 'crimes' and actual crimes, I also realize that yes, taking children as slaves would be a violation of their personal rights. Yet to call this supposed 'clarification' an actual argument is stunning. My case, SOCAL, is that there are people in this world who do not care about your personal rights or your property rights. Since you have literally no means of establishing these things as the law of the land in anarchy, I've just removed the bottom piece in your tumbling Jenga tower.{

 

Do you know what the basis for law is? The basis for anarchist law, as it also is for any non-contradictory law in society, is natural law. Libertarian philosophy is based upon natural law and is quite a simple standard for holding people accountable. The "mechanism" for holding people accountable is not quite as simple, but using the guidelines of natural law and assuming a demand, which individuals such as yourself are sure to provide, the market does provide services. It does not just magically appear, as you suggest, but I have neither the time nor the patience to explain the workings of the free market to you again. Quite simply, demand and the profit motive ensures those willing to take a risk will invest. Human nature assures us that individuals make decisions based on their own self interest and for their own benefit. Because this is true, supply will exist. Also, you claim that businesses can coerce, murder or steal to stay in business but how do you figure that will happen in a free market, one without government favors, legislation, subsidies, tariffs, taxes or other regulation that serve to stymy competition. How can a business keep customers and not create devastating competition in a free market if it resorted to the tactics you describe? Do you really believe the ludicrous examples you spew. If so, you have a lot to learn about economics and specifically the free market.

 

Your answer as to how an anarchist society would respond to crime is scarily Obamaesque. "Well, we hope the free market will change the situation." Yet your philosophical assurances and weary posturing on the virtue of self-ownership and free trade ring hollow. Human nature is human nature. Your position requires me to believe that people will not only be able to afford the justice or safety being offered privately for a fee, but also knowledgeable enough about the goings-on of their various contractors that such market pressure could be relied on. But unlike our constitution where government ultimately answers to the people, these hypothetical defense businesses (assuming one hasn't already beaten out the rest) answer to no one. If they decide to quit trying to please their customers and instead start extorting them, well tough sh#t, eh comrade?

 

How's that Constitution working out for you?

 

I'm guessing you meant to cede the point on Katrina and Montreal. The absence of government is the definition of anarchy. The results were instructive.

How do you figure Katrina and Montreal were a lack of government? I haven't researched Montreal at all, but Katrina was by far one of the biggest bungles of government intervention in the history of the US, maybe second to only the Great Depression. It's laughable that you can equate that to anarchy, especially when the government was the ones confiscating the guns, imposing martial law, turning away charity, and pretty much becoming the icing on the clusterf@ck cake. Go reread you history if you think that was anarchy.

 

The difference between you and me isn't that large. I'm willing to walk with you when you advocate the legalization of drugs and prostitution––this will eliminate huge bastions of crime and restore the rights of citizens. I'm willing to walk with you when you say we need less government. Where I stop, however, is the place where you plunge off the cliff and imagine yourself landing in the Lollipop King's magical forest with cupcake mountains and rivers of caramel. I've seen one too many examples of street justice and mobocracy.

Maybe the difference between us is not much to you, but when I hear or read that someone advocates theft and violence against other individuals, which you do, I draw the line. You may try to claim that you don't support either but if you support government, no matter which one it is, you support both. You can make fun, criticize or name call all you want but the bottom line is that you have yet to point out a contradiction in my philosophy, you have yet to provide a logical or moral justification for the theft and violence you support and you definitely have not proven that anything you say about economics or government planning is anywhere nearly as efficient or fair as the free market.

 

1. You're coloring with crayons when you should be making art. First you lump all forms of government as if they're identical and then attach phony and simplistic terminology onto them. In effect you're wrong twice. The government of the United States is not a coercive totalitarian monopoly. You'll notice a list of 27 notes attached to the constitution. These aren't accidents. The people of the United States can and have altered the constitution and could theoretically do away with all taxes. Not that you'd want to, as the idea behind taxes is that it pays for things you actually use and need, such as the court system which demands innocence until guilt is proven, or the military you received your paychecks from, or the police whose very presence is factually known to restrain a number of criminals or people otherwise disposed to commit crime. You get more than a handshake for your money. I say we pay too much taxes, ridiculously too much, to the point where it borders on theft, yet because no amount of force actually stands between you and electing representatives who will lower taxes and eliminate waste except that of public opinion and counter-argument, the bloated rhetoric and whining about violence really holds no water. Even accepting the coercive monopoly mudsling as accurate for the sake of argument, you still haven't shown it's not in the best interest of mankind, or that free markets could even in theory provide the things a national rule of law does.

 

2. Well when one theory gaps its last, time for another! This is the Mad Tea Party of politics. Everyone just move down a chair and take another sip. "How can a business keep customers and not create devastating competition in a free market if it resorted to the tactics you describe?" you ask. I answer again: by FORCE. Not "the" force, like in Star Wars. But threatening or violent action against the people upon whom it depends for revenue, OR all the weaker forms of competitive enterprise in the vicinity. Defense Contractor A extorts the local butcher. Butcher attempts to contact Defense Contractor B; upon hearing this, Defense Contractor A either kills Mr. Butcher to make an example to everyone else in town, or merges or destroys Defense Contractor B, leaving A as the only viable option. "Self-interest" is a relative term which completely changes meanings when we're talking about situations like this. Your best interest is to stay alive, and if that means paying DC A a small sum, that is more valuable than attempting to thwart his ambitions when the likely result is death. Don't think these things happen? Read your history, modern or ancient.

 

3. How's the Constitution working? I peeked out my window. The world's still there.

 

4. In Montreal the police went on strike. Anarchists got a lesson in human nature that day. There was murder, destruction of property, looting, and untold amounts of vandalism and chaos––all for a strike that lasted 16 hours. But if these examples aren't enough, read any history of sieges or coups when the governmental institutions collapse and give way to factionalism. There are periods in between governments which can only be described as anarchy. And since anarchy is merely that––the absence of government––all the rest of your philosophical or moral positions are based off the horrendously unsupported and unsupportable notion that a population of over six billion people will almost unanimously agree with personal and property rights. The best I can tell you is, try an experiment with fifty people first. And I'll still wish you an uneasy "good luck".

 

5. I advocate violence and theft against child molesters, murderers, rapists, and the like, and I don't apologize for it. I do not support the right of parents to not have their children immunized to diseases like polio, because even if one naively thinks it's their right, we as a species have a thing called 'herd immunity' by which the more of us are protected against a disease, the more people survive by proxy, even unvaccinated. I also willingly concede a small portion of my income for basic social welfare such as the justice system and our national defense. And since you drive on our roads, are protected by our military and police force, are granted the protection of your basic liberties of speech, religion, and protest by our Constitution, I suggest you do the same.

[walksalone]

Anarchy would have a tough time working here and now, due to the immense amount of greedy, idiotic, douchebags running around.

 

If everyone was nice enough to give me a heads up though, on when the proverbial sh*t was going to hit the fan, so that I could get my family to my mom's place in SD, i'd be more than happy to watch folks wipe themselves out.