More Rants

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336086403' post='2426679']

This isn't truly coercion. He isn't forced to accept the job. Neither of us must consent to the demands of the other. If he rejects the job, he simply does not receive the money I would give him. There may be situations in which employers have great advantage, or use their intelligence to go make unjust labor agreements. I don't rule that out.

Currently, government works to protect many businesses from competition. Monopolies have, through history, actually been the product of government intervention on behalf of a favored business or businesses. Intellectual Property is a form of monopoly. In an area, a business could gain a large market share, but it would have to do so by providing a superior product that people wanted. There are arguments about things like power companies, phone companies, but you will find counter arguments there, as well.

In the advocacy of a state to regulate markets to prevent people from doing evil, there is an assumption that the state, with access to power that no private company enjoys (random stops and searches, laws against resisting police detainment, even if unlawful, etc.), will somehow be free from corruption. This is clearly an argument for minimal government and good constitutions, but these are subject to the same abuse by powerful people. Nothing will solve the problem of evil men.
[/quote]

Ok. But your solution to the problem of evil men is to remove one of the checks that exists against them. Government and corporations are both full of individuals who are morally corupt. But, while there is at times collusion between parts of government and part of the corporate world there is also a fair deal of antagonism. Both are competing for power and resources and loyalty. You want to remove one antagonist force in the expectation that somehow the power vaccum will result in less violence and exploitation, which is emperically wrong, by the way, but eveb theoretically it makes no sense. Government brings peace. Tribalistic associations are pronouncedlu more violent than modern governments. Do you think that corporations would hesitate for a second to use force if governmet wasn't there?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336086403' post='2426679']
This isn't truly coercion. He isn't forced to accept the job.
[/quote]
In the hands of an Islamic extremist you are not being truly coerced to adopt Islam, you can always accept the option of having yer head cut off.

[Kia ora]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336066667' post='2426550']
Do I recognize the influence of Sobran, in this response?
[/quote]I donno who that is.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1336084847' post='2426671']
Therein lies the central flaw of anarchist utopianism. You can't just wish away aggression from human nature. Aggression in all its ugly forms will be with us until Judgment Day, and any realistic model for human society must be able to deal with this fact. For competing "business" interests that operate outside the rule of law (such as drug cartels), murder, terror, rape and torture are business as usual.

I agree with you that government has far overstepped its bounds, yet I don't share the fantasy that a world without any form of state or law enforcement would be a desirable condition.
[/quote]

No one has ever suggested human nature would end, or that people would cease to use violence. That would be leftism, which came up with some really kooky ideas about the perfectibility of mankind through strong laws.

I haven't read any anarchist utopians. I haven't read any anarchists who think human nature would change, or that society would be free of violence. In fact, there's quite a bit of back and forth about the best ways to order society. No anarchist I know believes aggression will end, they just oppose giving one special group a claim on legalized aggression. In this context, aggression means the initiation of violence, not response to violence. You will find statements made by Rothbard, or Woods that I believe are overly simple, but having the obvious caveat of: people are still people would seem to be ridiculous in a philosophy built in part upon extreme skepticism about the way people handle power.

If bad guys don't need a state to become effective bad guys, why would good guys need a state in order to fight them?

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336090351' post='2426714']
In the hands of an Islamic extremist you are not being truly coerced to adopt Islam, you can always accept the option of having yer head cut off.
[/quote]
You just compared me not hiring someone to chopping off someone's head.

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1336091987' post='2426737']
I donno who that is.
[/quote]
http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

[KnightofChrist]

How would justice for murders work under an anarchist system?

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336099074' post='2426788']
How would justice for murders work under an anarchist system?
[/quote]
Mobs would tear them apart and eat their flesh.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336099478' post='2426792']

Mobs would tear them apart and eat their flesh.
[/quote]

looking at most actual anarchic societies that have historically existed that is not too far from a valid guess. Violence has declined dramatically with the rise of government.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336100064' post='2426799']
looking at most actual anarchic societies that have historically existed that is not too far from a valid guess. Violence has declined dramatically with the rise of government.
[/quote]
Has it?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336100670' post='2426808']

Has it?
[/quote]

In comparison to anarchism?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336099478' post='2426792']

Mobs would tear them apart and eat their flesh.
[/quote]

No really. Like real deal holyfield for real real.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336100670' post='2426808']
Has it?
[/quote]

[url="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html"]http://www.edge.org/...er07_index.html[/url]

[i][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]The first is that Hobbes got it right. Life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short, not because of a primal thirst for blood but because of the inescapable logic of anarchy. Any beings with a modicum of self-interest may be tempted to invade their neighbors to steal their resources. The resulting fear of attack will tempt the neighbors to strike first in preemptive self-defense, which will in turn tempt the first group to strike against them preemptively, and so on. This danger can be defused by a policy of deterrence—don't strike first, retaliate if struck—but, to guarantee its credibility, parties must avenge all insults and settle all scores, leading to cycles of bloody vendetta. These tragedies can be averted by a state with a monopoly on violence, because it can inflict disinterested penalties that eliminate the incentives for aggression, thereby defusing anxieties about preemptive attack and obviating the need to maintain a hair-trigger propensity for retaliation. Indeed, Eisner and Elias attribute the decline in European homicide to the transition from knightly warrior societies to the centralized governments of early modernity. And, today, violence continues to fester in zones of anarchy, such as frontier regions, failed states, collapsed empires, and territories contested by mafias, gangs, and other dealers of contraband.[/size][/font][/i]

Edited May 4, 2012 by Hasan

[Vincent Vega]

I like phatmass. I like reading the opposing viewpoints of the ideal. I sometimes feel like Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting without being smart like him and poo.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Got asked by a nurse if I read nutrition labels on food. Replied I do not because I don't want the nanny-state telling me what to eat. I don't need to steenkin label to tell me funkballs (brussels spouts) are good for me and eating a can of spaghetti-os is not.

stickin it to da man!

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336102041' post='2426837']
[url="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html"]http://www.edge.org/...er07_index.html[/url]

[i][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]The first is that Hobbes got it right. Life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short, not because of a primal thirst for blood but because of the inescapable logic of anarchy. Any beings with a modicum of self-interest may be tempted to invade their neighbors to steal their resources. The resulting fear of attack will tempt the neighbors to strike first in preemptive self-defense, which will in turn tempt the first group to strike against them preemptively, and so on. This danger can be defused by a policy of deterrence—don't strike first, retaliate if struck—but, to guarantee its credibility, parties must avenge all insults and settle all scores, leading to cycles of bloody vendetta. These tragedies can be averted by a state with a monopoly on violence, because it can inflict disinterested penalties that eliminate the incentives for aggression, thereby defusing anxieties about preemptive attack and obviating the need to maintain a hair-trigger propensity for retaliation. Indeed, Eisner and Elias attribute the decline in European homicide to the transition from knightly warrior societies to the centralized governments of early modernity. And, today, violence continues to fester in zones of anarchy, such as frontier regions, failed states, collapsed empires, and territories contested by mafias, gangs, and other dealers of contraband.[/size][/font][/i]
[/quote]
This works if you regard the violence of the state as permissible and preferable. The above does not attempt to quantify the violence under coercive government as opposed to non-coercive government. Here let coercion mean initiation of violence (response to violence, or penalties in response to violence would not be initiation).

Anarchism like anarcho-capitalism does not mean absence of law, or even of law enforcement. It is a different means of organization.

All men have the authority to defend property rights (including ownership of the self). All men have the right to defend the rights of others, as well. This right does not originate in the state, which is a creation of man. It pre-exists all human organizations. It makes sense for people to organize and set rules for the exercise of this right, and to perhaps delegate the use of some of those rights to a body of identified men. This makes sense, and it could lead to greater peace than if there were many separate good men fighting against evil individually.

It is true that paying taxes to the current manifestation of the Federal government is preferable to dealing with ravening bands of more blatantly physically violent individuals, or with more capricious warlords of the various sort we've seen through history. We can agree on that point.

Where we do not agree is that these are my only two choices (as in between coercive government and ravening warlord types). We may or may not agree that this makes the CMoFG morally good. I say it doesn't. I'd rather pay forty percent of my income to a robber than have my nostrils filled with angry wasps. That would not remove his status as a robber because I chose an evil more preferable to another. That there is a worse wolf outside the door does not make the one in my house less of a wolf. Or something like that.

The lesser of two evils is still an evil. You want to keep what you see as a greater evil away. Me too (although quantifying that is a bit of a problem. I'd say the localized murder of . We do not agree that the sure means of that is what we have now.

I'm just gonna post this as is. It's hot in this stupid house and I have to cook.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336094861' post='2426760']
No one has ever suggested human nature would end, or that people would cease to use violence. That would be leftism, which came up with some really kooky ideas about the perfectibility of mankind through strong laws.

I haven't read any anarchist utopians. I haven't read any anarchists who think human nature would change, or that society would be free of violence. In fact, there's quite a bit of back and forth about the best ways to order society. No anarchist I know believes aggression will end, they just oppose giving one special group a claim on legalized aggression. In this context, aggression means the initiation of violence, not response to violence. You will find statements made by Rothbard, or Woods that I believe are overly simple, but having the obvious caveat of: people are still people would seem to be ridiculous in a philosophy built in part upon extreme skepticism about the way people handle power.

If bad guys don't need a state to become effective bad guys, why would good guys need a state in order to fight them?
[/quote]
In an anarchical world, who's the good guys and who's the bad guys?

I guess in anarchy-land, we'd just better pray that the gangs/warlords/tribes with the greatest semblance of noble ideals are also the best armed with the best fighters.

The bottom line is I'd still prefer to live where there's rule of law, and where one can be tried under a court of law and a jury of peers, rather than just be beheaded because one's on the wrong side of the dominant gang boss (while there's no on to say the beheaders nay).

Without government and rule of law, there's only endless wars of vendetta.

While I'm well aware of the flaws and imperfections of the system, and of the existence of evil governments. I just think a system with some remnant of constitutional law, and where citizens can have a say in who's in power is preferable to lawless anarchy. (And anarchy [i]will [/i]be lawless. To be effective, a law needs enforcement - ie. a state.)


I'm still waiting on an example of an actual functioning anarchic society.