ClumsyMonkey.net

I wouldnt say that though because I can see valid reasons for people to be athiest. However I do see the point your trying to make so all is well.

Well, you're right, I shouldn't have used that analogy. I'm sorry.

No problem at all.

mosaik wrote:

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.

i come back from Mineral Wells, Texas, and i see there's actual live debate on the CM....i should leave and come back more often.

ok, here's a true story, the King Ranch that is so beloved by TexAns and is so famous through out the world was built by what Doug is saying here.

Richard King had a small army of gunmen that would find land owners and kill them. these men sometimes were not even in the ground yet, when Richard king would go to the widdow and offer pennies on the dollar for her husband's land. back in this time it was the man's duty to buy, sell land, so it was the man who knew what the value of the land was, how much it could be sold for and it was his duty to do any business that had anything to do with the land. this new widdow does not know what the value of the land is, she doesn't know how to sell it, she's still grieving over the sudden loss of her husband so she's not thinking straight. so she gets jobbed over by king and the land is sold for pennies on the dollar.

so think about it in this current "what if" situation, you have a man (mr. jones) with an army, and a water plant. any other guy (mr. smith) with an army can just as easily kill Jones off. without jones around jones' army disbands in the confusion, because surely jones' name was on the checks, and since he's gone, the assumption is that the checks will be too. this leaves a few army personel left to defend the plant, and mrs. jones. mrs. jones might not fully understand how the run the company, much less how to defend her plant. her children have been around the plant all their lives, and because they were around the plant growing up they don't want anything to do with the plant, they've become farmers, or bankers or something. no one around mrs. jones fully understands just what the hell is going on. then mr. smith's army comes in and kills everyone on the plant property. because mr. smith COULD pay off the widdow for pennies on the dollar like Richard King, but it;'s much cheeper to buy bullets for his amry then give mrs. jones a check.

the words "hostile takeover" have a brand new meaning now. under anarchy, this situation will play out several times. warlords will be fighting themselves in the streets to defend and conquer new lands, new utilities, and new facilities. warlords create war, and war is something you do not support. you do not like the use of force and the fact that wars are being waged for no real aparant reason, yet under this idea, there will be nothing but war. yes, you would not do such things, but others will.

darwinism has been thrown out the window. the strongest don't surrvive anymore, not when the 90 pound weakling can push a button and destroy all the strongest men in the world. technology, greed, and money makes the world go around, i would rather government have all three then 90 pound warlords killing each other in an effort to try and gain all three.

I'm such a fence sitter. I have to admit the anarchist system is the better of the two, but unfortunately I feel like it'll never become a reality in North America. There are too many people who think we benefit greatly from our governments, for an anarchist state to ever be born. Unless some island spouts from the ocean and it's deemed an anarchist society, I don't think it could happen.

It would work in my opinion, but it won't happen.

Bandalero wrote:[

darwinism has been thrown out the window. the strongest don't surrvive anymore, not when the 90 pound weakling can push a button and destroy all the strongest men in the world. technology, greed, and money makes the world go around, i would rather government have all three then 90 pound warlords killing each other in an effort to try and gain all three.

I think darwinism still would play a huge role. However instead of grading strenth on only a physical level it would have to be graded on all the things you mentioned. Technology, greed, money ect.

but that's not the strongest, that's the smartest, the greediest, and the wealthiest survive.

But strong has never ment just physically. You can be a strong businessman, strong leader, strong whatever. But in the end thats not the point is it? In reality the strong will survive even if the "strong" of todays world runs on economics or military might. It may not be Darwinism but its close.

What if everything started from an even playing field? Do you guys think it would work then? I mean if we all started out with nothing and a society was born from that.

actually darwin meant phisically. what he meant was the alpha male is the strongest, so he will survive, the runt will not. the creature that can evolve and adapt to his surroundings will survive.

Well society was born on an equal playing field and it eventually evolved into what we have today. Howevever if somehow or another the world decided to go the anarchist route and everyone started equally it might work but in all honestly I think anarchy would eventually evolve into a different kind of government. For instance when civilization first was born it was much like anarchy was it not? Howevever it was only a matter of time before someone gained sort of advantage and took control of the country resulting in a despotism. In all seriousness if Canada were to suddenly turn to anarchy i'm sure there would be many people craving power and overtime they would build up power and take control.

At least thats how I invision things.

J-Neli wrote:What if everything started from an even playing field? Do you guys think it would work then? I mean if we all started out with nothing and a society was born from that.

Hence why I said it may not be Darwinism.

mosaik wrote: 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.

Doug, I realize you are a student of theory and you are quite knowledgable in that arena, but it is obvious you have never studied sociology. If a child is raised and is molested until he/she is 8 or 9 years old, then he/she will be led to believe that it is normal to be molested. So even if he/she "consents" to being molested, that decision is flawed based on a misguided thought development throughout his/her growth. So, given that, even if a child "consents" to molestation, that doesn't make it right.

Corey, I completely agree with you. I find many things immensely wrong with that assumption but my personal opinion aside. I work with many 8 and 9 year olds and i can tell you that they are not capable of making that kind of decision, not at that age. Not only that but children can be easily manipulated or forced to do those things without consent. Who's there to monitor that there is consent?

Well that's why I put consent in quotes.

I totally missed this post.

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

Except for that relgion and rational philosophy are totally different. I can prove what i believe. It's a lot tougher to prove that there is a God.

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.

I disagree. I implore you to read the articles by bob murphy and jacob halbrooks. I encourage you to consider the free state project.

Liberty is absolutely a feasable concept.

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.

Prove it. Show me how. Give me a hypothetical situation where this is possible.

And, if not that, it would become the ultimate capitalist state, with giant corporations running the country in everything but name.

Again, show me how this is possible.

Anarchy's an abstraction; it can't work in reality because it goes against the laws of human nature.

I disagree. Our philosohpy is based on natural law, it is the most true to human nature of any philosophy.

Can anybody name an anarchic civilization, past or present? No? I wonder why.

We've had a ruling class for our entire history, that's why. Once, there had never been a democracy either.

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.

And you've given me no reason to believe that government is ethically acceptable. Therefore, I cannot support it.

Slavery was a highly profitable and pragmatic trade. Do you believe blacks should be enslaved again because the system "worked"?

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).

Why wouldn't they exist?

Anarchists believe people should only have access to these things if they can afford it.

How else, besides merit, should resources be distributed? What method should we use?

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.

Once most people in a democratic country called Germany prefered abusing the jewish. Once most people in the USA were in favor of slaves. If 90% of a population votes to kill the other 10%, is that right?

Majority rules, right?

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.

See above for what i think about most people making up my mind for me. And explain to me what would stop a bunch of free citizens from voluntarily submitting to government rule? In an anarchist civil society you and your ten friends could form a government on your own property, and anybody who liked what you were doing could join the party.

As for the rest of us, we'd be fine.

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.

Well first of all, government is coercivce. It doesn't matter if the majority feels that way or not.

Let me ask you this. If, in your social science/political science/whatever courses in high school and uni, libertarian philosophy was presented as a viable option, do you think more people would give it some thought?

Secondly, so few americans vote and even fewer actually give their political choices some thought. It's not like out of 300 million people, 299 million are die hard supporters of democracy.

Like it or not, our numbers are growing and they're creeping up on yours.

Corey and others -

Re: consent.

I'm not saying that there is not a danger here that children will be abused. unfortunately, children are abused all over the world - even in democracies!

the same avenues for ending that abuse that exist today would or will exist in a free society. unfortunately if the parents are corrupted it does fall to the child to try and right his situation.

mosaik wrote:Corey and others -

Re: consent.

I'm not saying that there is not a danger here that children will be abused. unfortunately, children are abused all over the world - even in democracies!

the same avenues for ending that abuse that exist today would or will exist in a free society. unfortunately if the parents are corrupted it does fall to the child to try and right his situation.

The point of my post was not to argue democracy vs anarchy. Been there. Done that. I just question your assessment that 8 or 9 year olds could actually consent to molestation.

Your last point is interesting. It falls on the shoulders of an 8 year old to take its parents on and rectify the situation? You think a child is capable of that?

well, no, i don't, but who else is going to do it?

mosaik wrote:Except for that relgion and rational philosophy are totally different. I can prove what i believe. It's a lot tougher to prove that there is a God.

Philosophy and religion are cousins in that neither is provable. You can prove without a doubt a mathematical theorem. You cannot prove a philosophy, as it rests on arbitrary premises. I.e. your philosophy rests on the premise that force is wrong. That's a value judgment and not provable.

I disagree. I implore you to read the articles by bob murphy and jacob halbrooks. I encourage you to consider the free state project.

Liberty is absolutely a feasable concept.

I've read some of the articles you've linked and looked at the free state project site. From what I've seen, these articles focus on minutiae, not the big picture, and even that unconvincingly. For instance, from a Bob Murphy article:

Bob Murphy wrote:Of course, one of the most basic stipulations in any contract -- whether entering a mall or living in a neighborhood co-op -- would be strong prohibitions on murder. In other words all contracts of this type would have a clause saying, “If I am found guilty of murder I agree to pay $y million to the estate of the deceased.” Naturally, no one would sign such a contract unless he were sure that the trial procedures used to determine his guilt or innocence had a strong presumption of innocence; nobody would want to be found guilty of a murder he didn’t commit. But on the other hand, the procedures would have to be designed so that there was still a good chance that guilty people would actually be convicted, since e.g. people don’t want to shop in malls where murder goes unpunished.

He is actually saying that every time you leave your property, you would have to sign a contract saying "I won't kill; I won't steal; I won't do blah-blah-blah, at this mall/drug store/arcade/school/park/street corner/place of business/etc. or else I agree to be prosecuted." Now, this would work, of course, but it would be extremely tedious, especially given that you'd have to read every contract very carefully to make sure you know what you're getting yourself into. And we have a system like that anyway; we just centralize it and call it government.

And I know, I know, I know what you're going to say: "But nobody asked me to agree to these rules and it's not fair!" No, it's not fair. That's why I think the Free State Project is a good idea. If enough people with beliefs similar to yours want to get together and set up your own system, I say more power to you. But don't try and destroy our system, which we happen to enjoy and thrive under. Get together, stop talking theory, and put it into action. Under your own theory, if your system is truly better than ours, we'll be able to see it and we'll want to join you, and your anarchist society will grow.

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.

Prove it. Show me how. Give me a hypothetical situation where this is possible.

It's happened a thousand times in history, wherein a populace is unhappy with the current situation and unites under new leadership, overthrowing the old system. There would be many that would be unhappy in an anarchist society: those who can't get work and have no recourse for unemployment benefits, those who can't pay for their medical bills, those who can't work because of disability, those who can't get hired because of the prejudices of the large company owners. In comes some would-be politician who says, "Hey, this system sucks, I'll offer you all a better life!" They unite under him or her, and a new government is set up. The anarchists would fight back, of course, but with no centralized military to defend itself it would be extremely difficult. It would be even more difficult if a neighboring country with a well-developed military decided they wanted the anarchists' resources and moved to take over.

And, if not that, it would become the ultimate capitalist state, with giant corporations running the country in everything but name.

Again, show me how this is possible.

In an anarchist society, money is the only law. So say there's a successful private police company. They're really good at what they do, so a lot of people hire them. They buy out all the local competition, and pretty soon, they're the only police in a very big area. They're making tons of money. So they start buying up more and more property and buy out other industries. Pretty soon, everything in the area is owned by this one giant conglomerate, and they can set their own rules and their own prices for everything in the area. And even if people, fed up with the unfair rules of this corporation, decided to give up their lives and their jobs and move elsewhere, they'd only find themselves in the grip of another giant conglomerate. Hardly sounds like "freedom" to me.

Anarchy's an abstraction; it can't work in reality because it goes against the laws of human nature.

I disagree. Our philosohpy is based on natural law, it is the most true to human nature of any philosophy.

Most primate species, including chimpanzees, our closest relatives, live under "governed" conditions. There is a leader of the pack who controls the others by force, and things only change when s/he is challenged and overthrown by another pack leader. Anthropologists agree that this is probably how our ancestors lived too, and from the dawn of recorded history we find nothing but governed societies. If "natural law" were consistent with "human nature", government would have been created by humans, it wouldn't have evolved with us.

Can anybody name an anarchic civilization, past or present? No? I wonder why.

We've had a ruling class for our entire history, that's why. Once, there had never been a democracy either.

Exactly my point.

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.

And you've given me no reason to believe that government is ethically acceptable. Therefore, I cannot support it.

Slavery was a highly profitable and pragmatic trade. Do you believe blacks should be enslaved again because the system "worked"?

Like I say, I agree that people should not be forced to live under a government if they don't want to. If you feel yourself enslaved, I support your right to band together with others and start your own society. (Whether this is feasible is another argument entirely; I think your best bet would be something like the Free State Project, and your hardest battle would be to break away from the government that currently controls that area.) But you cannot expect, as an individual, to say to the government under which you currently live: "Hey! I don't like your rules! Leave me alone!" and get results, because the government owns the land you live on; it has created the systems that supply it and protect it, and it will effectively say, "Tough!"

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).

Why wouldn't they exist?

They would, just not in the same way. The way our society is set up, everyone has access to a free education, which in turn helps prepare people for a lucrative career. But in anarchy, only the upper class could afford to send their children to school, effectively creating a very wide class gulf between the educated "aristocracy", and the poor who stay poor and uneducated indefinately. And yes, our current system is somewhat similar, with inner city schools being shitty and all, but at least a system is there and we are trying to improve it.

Healthcare, for another example. I've read in some anarchist manifesto somewhere that anarchy is the only system that would honor a person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Except, it would seem that a person only has a right to live if they can afford it. Even in America, with its privatized healthcare, we do have state health insurance, and social security to help the elderly and disabled. Other countries have it even better in regard to public healthcare. But in an anarchist society, if someone needed a heart transplant, he'd better be able to pony up the cash, or he's screwed. This is social darwinism at its most inhumane. I for one would far prefer to live in a system where I know myself and my loved ones can get medical treatment no matter how much we have in the bank.

Anarchists believe people should only have access to these things if they can afford it.

How else, besides merit, should resources be distributed? What method should we use?

I believe that there are certain things everyone has a right to, whether they have money or not. Healthcare, education, justice, etc. Most other resources should be and are distributed on a capitalist basis.

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.

Once most people in a democratic country called Germany prefered abusing the jewish. Once most people in the USA were in favor of slaves. If 90% of a population votes to kill the other 10%, is that right?

Majority rules, right?

Ah yes, someone's always got to bring up the Holocaust. Of course that's not right; we believe in majority rules, minority rights. It's pretty spurious of you to compare America or Canada now to Nazi Germany. Nobody's advocating "KILL THE ANARCHISTS!". As I've said before, the majority is happy with our system, even if it is imperfect, even if it does fuck up, and yes, majority rules. As I said before, instead of overthrowing our government, which is not your prerogative, you should work on starting your own society. Then we could live with our system and you with yours, and everyone would feel much better about the state of the universe...

And explain to me what would stop a bunch of free citizens from voluntarily submitting to government rule? In an anarchist civil society you and your ten friends could form a government on your own property, and anybody who liked what you were doing could join the party.

As for the rest of us, we'd be fine.

Erm, well, that's exactly what's happened a thousand times in history. Look at America's history. A bunch of people got together, fought for their rights, broke away from a system they didn't like, and formed a government on their own property. You live on their property (or Canada's property), and thus must follow their rules or get out.

Well first of all, government is coercivce. It doesn't matter if the majority feels that way or not.

Actually, it does. Because you are the one stipulating that coersion is wrong, the rest of us said no such thing. The social contract states: you live on our property, you follow our rules, or you will face the consequences. We agree to the social contract because we want to live in an ordered society. Coersion is wrong if you have no choice whether or not to submit to the contract, but you do. You are free to leave the country. You are free to work to change the laws. Just because you don't like that you may have to move or fight to get what you want does not mean you aren't free to do so.

Let me ask you this. If, in your social science/political science/whatever courses in high school and uni, libertarian philosophy was presented as a viable option, do you think more people would give it some thought?

Anarchy and libertarianism are very big on my campus, whether or not they're being taught in classes. It's probably not being taught in government/political classes simply because anarchy is by definition NOT a government or political system, and furthermore, there are no existent anarchist societies to talk about. In a social philosophy class, I think it should be taught, along with other systems. But whether or not it's in the curriculum (I honestly don't know what my school offers along those lines, although it's very liberal), people are definitely getting the message, if the groups protesting around campus are any indication.

Secondly, so few americans vote and even fewer actually give their political choices some thought. It's not like out of 300 million people, 299 million are die hard supporters of democracy.

You're right that a lot of Americans are apathetic. But they're apathetic because they don't see a problem. If our lives were being seriously impinged upon by the government, we sure as hell would do something about it. This coming election will most likely be an indication of that: a lot of people are pissed about the Bush administration and will show up to vote against him where they wouldn't have voted last time. Apathy = contentment.

Like it or not, our numbers are growing and they're creeping up on yours.

Like I said, more power to you.