ClumsyMonkey.net

Hey, I've been thinking about the whole anarchist theory and for the most part it makes sense, but I keep coming across moral dilemmas in which I'm unsure how the anarchist theory would solve them.

Here's a couple...

1. How would an anarchist society deal with child pornography? A child's parents could easily take photos, and send them around to people who would like to view them. Although nothing but the law is stopping them right now (since the law doesn't come into affect until they're caught), the law does help eventually stop child porn rings, and puts those people involved in jail once they are caught. If no one is out to catch them since both parties are agree to the deal, and the child has very little say in the matter, since they probably understand very little about the situation, how can this be solved?

2. As much as we pay for health care right now, we recieve an infinite amount of it for the price we pay. If we needed to see a doctor everyday, we're able to. This might be the case for someone who is elderly. Under the anarchist system, how would an elderly person survive once their funds ran out, if they're paying straight from their pocket? I understand private health care providers (or HMO's) could be put in place, but for a flat annual fee, they would probably be restricted to how many visits they can have per year.

It seems like we would have far too many people dying before modern medicine would previous have allowed them to, simply because they weren't able to save up enough over their life to battle a certain disease. Is there a link I'm missing? Or is this just the reality of the anarchist society and something that must be accepted by all?

3. Are there any limits as to what can be privatized? Could we be paying a company to use their air, or something that's a vital necessity? It seems somewhat extreme, but I wouldn't doubt that this would also become a reality.

Thanks.

J-Neli wrote:1. How would an anarchist society deal with child pornography? A child's parents could easily take photos, and send them around to people who would like to view them. Although nothing but the law is stopping them right now (since the law doesn't come into affect until they're caught), the law does help eventually stop child porn rings, and puts those people involved in jail once they are caught. If no one is out to catch them since both parties are agree to the deal, and the child has very little say in the matter, since they probably understand very little about the situation, how can this be solved?

Simple answer: it can't. until the child is old enough to refuse to participate, there would be nobody to stop it. Furthermore, if the child got a kick out of it and wanted to continue, then that is what would happen.

the reason for this is that it does not actually qualify as a moral dilemma because if the child is consenting then nobodies natural rights are being violated.

2. As much as we pay for health care right now, we recieve an infinite amount of it for the price we pay. If we needed to see a doctor everyday, we're able to. This might be the case for someone who is elderly. Under the anarchist system, how would an elderly person survive once their funds ran out, if they're paying straight from their pocket? I understand private health care providers (or HMO's) could be put in place, but for a flat annual fee, they would probably be restricted to how many visits they can have per year.

I don't know enough about healthcare business models to answer fully. However, keeping in mind that there would be no government set price controls and that everything would be open to negotiation, a senior patient who required daily care could probably arrange to pay a flat yearly fee for unlimited visits. This would of course depend on the type of care required and the cost of providing such care.

Simply put, you can buy as much healthcare as you can afford. The quality and the quantity will all depend on your income.

It seems like we would have far too many people dying before modern medicine would previous have allowed them to, simply because they weren't able to save up enough over their life to battle a certain disease. Is there a link I'm missing? Or is this just the reality of the anarchist society and something that must be accepted by all?

economic law dictates that in a capitalist market place you would see lower prices due to increased competiton. I truly belive that cures and care for diseases would become more available due to an increased number of suppliers and other market factors such as commpetion and the capital motivation to innovate (ie make a cheaper better product and you'll sell more of them)

believe it or not, healthcare in canada is expensive because the industry is so restrictive - the government does not want to encourage a private system so outside companies and medical agencies are held to a very limited role. does it not stand to reason that if more medical minds were working on a cure for cancer we would have it sooner?

3. Are there any limits as to what can be privatized? Could we be paying a company to use their air, or something that's a vital necessity? It seems somewhat extreme, but I wouldn't doubt that this would also become a reality.

I cannot fathom how a company could start charging for air, but if they found a way to control and limit the supply of air they certainly could charge for it.

anything that can be controled can be sold. food, water, and if it became possible, oxygen.

Hope that helps

Thanks!

I'll be sure to let you know if I have anymore questions.

The reason why I asked the question about oxygen is because I took a look at one of the websites that you had linked on your emtee.org site, I can't remember which one but there was a message board, and one of the topics was on whether we would have to pay for air. Some people were saying yes others no, but just wanted to see what you thought. It seems pretty absurd though.

oh ya, don't think you've converted me over to your side or anything I'm just trying to learn about different political philosophies, and I think I have too much leftest blood in me right now to find anarchy acceptable.

mosaik wrote:Simple answer: it can't. until the child is old enough to refuse to participate, there would be nobody to stop it. Furthermore, if the child got a kick out of it and wanted to continue, then that is what would happen.

the reason for this is that it does not actually qualify as a moral dilemma because if the child is consenting then nobodies natural rights are being violated.

The child isn't old enough to consent, doug. Children aren't rational beings. They don't have the brain development for it. They aren't mentally capable of consenting to stuff like that.

I fail to see how an unstructured society could be beneficial. I see anarchy as the downfall of a society. A breeding ground for laziness, violence, mental and physical decay. It creates an endless domino effect for everyone. It would revert to instant Darwinism, survival of the fittest. There has to be structure for any living group to carry on. Even something as simple as ants have structure to them. And yes Narbus, I also agree.

xjsb125 wrote:A breeding ground for laziness, violence, mental and physical decay.

I agree, but how is that different from what we have today?

Touche. narf

Essentially it would become darwinism, but there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion

Everythings wrong with that. We may be animals but we have the intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong. Its one of humanities gifts and we shouldnt throw that away. However with intelligence comes the knowledge of destruction. What would stop someone from getting ahold of a tank, or a nuclear weapon and using it on other human beings? Absolutely nothing. The only thing that is stopping it now is the order that we as humans have set out. People are kept in check and we are able to sleep without the worry that someone will break into our house and murder our familys with little or no consequence to their actions. Everyone in this political forum constantly raves about the rights and freedoms available to us in this country. Where would those rights be in a anarchist society? To kill or be killed would be your only right.

First of all, if there is no merit to anarchist philosophy then why do so many smart guys believe in it?

please people. I respect your side of this debate. I know that when you say "democracy is great" that there is some merit to your words. Could i get some of that back?

Now then:

Narbus, when i said consenting child i meant a boy or girl who is 8 or 9 and old enough now to start making decisions on what he wants. I am afraid you have still not shown me any proof that an 8 year old is incapable of making up his own mind. Yes, he may not always have the best reason for doing so, but unfortunately it's not up to you or me to decide.

I fail to see how an unstructured society could be beneficial. I see anarchy as the downfall of a society. A breeding ground for laziness, violence, mental and physical decay. It creates an endless domino effect for everyone. It would revert to instant Darwinism, survival of the fittest. There has to be structure for any living group to carry on. Even something as simple as ants have structure to them. And yes Narbus, I also agree.

You fail to see it, but have you ever given anarchist civil society any thought? I myself am not a pragmatist, i prefer to dwell on the theoretical, but bob murphy over at anti-state.com has written several articles dealing with the pragmatic side of our belief system.

Also, please read But Who Would Make Law? by Jacob Halbrooks over at STR. Another great article touching on the pragmatic side.

How can you possibly dismiss our system when you don't even know what it is you're dismissing? If you read the articles and still have questions or criticisms i'll gladly deal with them at that time.

Everythings wrong with that. We may be animals but we have the intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong.

Are you sure it's our intelligence? I would say it's our faculty of reason that enables us to make that distinction - how else can we have a universal ethical standard?

Its one of humanities gifts and we shouldnt throw that away. However with intelligence comes the knowledge of destruction. What would stop someone from getting ahold of a tank, or a nuclear weapon and using it on other human beings? Absolutely nothing. The only thing that is stopping it now is the order that we as humans have set out.

That's not true. Look at september 11th. Do you really believe that the only reason a nuclear weapon wasn't detonated is because of our governments?

Nukes are hard to build. There are whole countries (read: iraq) who would love to get their hands on one but can't afford it or don't have the tech to do so.

If nuclear weapons were as easy to build as planes are to hijack, we'd have seen them used.

Fact: Less then 1% of suspects of random acts of violence (rapes, murders, assaults) are convicted.

The law does not stop people from making bad choices.

People are kept in check and we are able to sleep without the worry that someone will break into our house and murder our familys with little or no consequence to their actions.

See above. If i break into a total strangers home and murder his family, and I wear gloves and take my gun with me, tell me how i could possibly be caught?

Even if i leave prints all over the place, if i am not in the criminal system already what good are they?

Police catch known criminals. The law does not deter Joe Citizen from commiting crimes, his own moral compass does.

Everyone in this political forum constantly raves about the rights and freedoms available to us in this country. Where would those rights be in a anarchist society? To kill or be killed would be your only right.

Welfare isn't a right. Education isn't a right. A place to live isn't a right.

You have only the fundamental rights that are afforded to you by natural law: Life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. That's all.

Everything eles would require the use of force. I am fundamentally opposed to coercion in any shape or form. Therefore I cannot support government.

I've answered your pragmatic questions on my philosophy. Are any of you willing to address the theoretical objections i have with yours?

I'll check those links out and give you my thoughts later.

mosaik wrote:Fact: Less then 1% of suspects of random acts of violence (rapes, murders, assaults) are convicted.

What is your sourcing for this statistic?

I can see your points Doug and I realize that democracy isnt perfect but neither is anarchy. Democracy certainly cannot stop tragedy wouldnt anarchy help promote tragedy? If a seller controlled a corner of the market he could sell his goods for a price that only the rich could afford. For instance what would stop a group of organized and armed individuals from taking over something like all the water sources in the area? (all plot holes aside) Water would be sold for far greater price and would go on unchecked untill another group of individuals decided to do something about it.

Now as far as nuclear weapons go, I fully realize that your average group of people or even your average country wouldnt be able to get ahold of them. Call it oversimplifying things on my part. But similar things on a much smaller scale could easily happen.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that, in an anarchist society, quite a few people would be denied the services they would get in a democratic one. I'm sure an anarchist society could set up hospitals or post offices, or even courts but what would stop those institutions from providing those services to a select minority?

mosaik wrote:First of all, if there is no merit to anarchist philosophy then why do so many smart guys believe in it?

Same reason so many smart people believe in religion. High IQ doesn't stop you from believing foolish things.

Anarchy is an interesting idea, but it's too idealistic to work in the real world. The systems of government we have now are a necessary evil. They're fucked up, they're corrupt, they'll probably screw you over a few times in life, but they're better than the alternative.

Besides, an anarchic state would be inherently unstable. It would be wide open for any power-hungry dude with a militia to come in and take over. And, if not that, it would become the ultimate capitalist state, with giant corporations running the country in everything but name.

Anarchy's an abstraction; it can't work in reality because it goes against the laws of human nature. Can anybody name an anarchic civilization, past or present? No? I wonder why.

mosaik wrote:I've answered your pragmatic questions on my philosophy. Are any of you willing to address the theoretical objections i have with yours?

You know what? You're right. Our system does suck. It does rely on coersion, and anyone can tell that our criminal justice system is fucked up. And that's just for starters. But you've given me no reason to believe that anarchy is feasible, or, if it were, preferable to our system.

Most people are willing to give up some of their paycheck to create beneficial social systems that would not exist in any recognizable manner in an anarchic society. Police. Firefighters. Schools. Roads. Healthcare (in some countries). Anarchists believe people should only have access to these things if they can afford it. I'm not going to debate the merits of social darwinism; I'm just going to say that if most people agreed with this philosophy, we would have tried it in action. In a democracy, majority rules, and if the majority of people wanted to overthrow the government and instill an anarchic darwinist society, they would do it. But most people prefer things the way they are.

Doug, you may consider anarchy to be a more pure, free system, and that's fine. But if most people living in a society want a government, and support the government, and contribute to the government, then it would be inhumane to try and inflict an anarchic society on them. Despite the philosophical/pragmatic flaws of anarchy itself, the fact is, there's extremely little support for it among the very people you want to free from this "oppressive, coercive" system.

Ultimately, if we felt the system were oppressive or coercive, we wouldn't be supporting it.

One-Eye wrote:

mosaik wrote:First of all, if there is no merit to anarchist philosophy then why do so many smart guys believe in it?

Same reason so many smart people believe in religion. High IQ doesn't stop you from believing foolish things.

Thats quite a statement to be making.

What is your sourcing for this statistic?

The united states beaureau of justice. Unfortunately the website has changed and i can't find the stats on exclusively random acts, but you can see from this graph that there is a STAGGERINGLY LOW rate of arrests for all violent crime overall:



One out of every four violent criminals is arrested in america.

You must further realize that that is for all violent crime overall. I was referring to only random acts of violence, which are notoriously hard to prosecute.

Further, not every arrest results in a conviction. I can't find the conviction stats but i bet they're just as bad.

I wish i could find the original website that i read the 1/100 stat on but these numbers make my point just as effectively.

I can see your points Doug and I realize that democracy isnt perfect but neither is anarchy.

Democracy is ethically flawed as is all government. Anarchy is not.

Democracy certainly cannot stop tragedy wouldnt anarchy help promote tragedy? If a seller controlled a corner of the market he could sell his goods for a price that only the rich could afford.

Economic law tells us that this is impossible. Let's review:

Less regulation of ANY market WILL lead to more profits. more profits WILL lead to more firms entering the market. more firms vying for market share WILL lead to increased competition and increased competition WILL lead to lower prices and better products.

That is how capitalism works. That is how it has always worked.

For instance what would stop a group of organized and armed individuals from taking over something like all the water sources in the area? (all plot holes aside) Water would be sold for far greater price and would go on unchecked untill another group of individuals decided to do something about it.

In an anarchist civil society, water plants and the like would be privately owned. It would be up to the property owners to guard their property from thieves accordingly.

Just like the police guard the governments property today, if I own hydroplant x and some gang of unrulys takes armed control of it, i will commision a private army to take it back.

IN FACT, my private army that promises death to thieves will probably serve as a far greater discouragement to potential theives then cops and their promises of jail time and lengthy (and possibly winnable) court battles.

Now as far as nuclear weapons go, I fully realize that your average group of people or even your average country wouldnt be able to get ahold of them. Call it oversimplifying things on my part. But similar things on a much smaller scale could easily happen.

Like the 9/11 attack?

I guess what i'm trying to say is that, in an anarchist society, quite a few people would be denied the services they would get in a democratic one. I'm sure an anarchist society could set up hospitals or post offices, or even courts but what would stop those institutions from providing those services to a select minority?

Competiton. Market law. Can you give me a good reason why a firm providing healthcare would want to exclude as much of it's market as possible?

Fair enough.

Joe Cool wrote:

One-Eye wrote:

mosaik wrote:First of all, if there is no merit to anarchist philosophy then why do so many smart guys believe in it?

Same reason so many smart people believe in religion. High IQ doesn't stop you from believing foolish things.

Thats quite a statement to be making.

Coming from the religious side, you could just as easily say "same reason so many smart people are atheists." My point is, "OMG, smart people agree with me!" is not an argument, it's a cop-out.