Blessings of Slavery: a free market vs. collectivization teaching tool

[Travis Retriever]

Because if you do that...it's not really anarchy anymore.  :p

That's Anomie, not Anarchy.
According to LadyAttis (who seems to know a fuck of a lot more about this crap than I do. *hint hint*), and Fringeelements (who also seems to know more about this stuff than me): anarchists are against the idea of a monopoly on those services, not against the services entirely.

I wouldn't try to stop you.  Just saying don't be surprised if years down the road, you find yourself with something one could define as a government emerging.  There IS a need for it.  We want a set of standards like property rights, rights to a fair trial and all that because we don't just want mob rule making the rules up as they go along.  A situation from the old west once illustrated this...

Without the rule of law: A wanted gunman is caught by a mob.  They vote 30 to 1 to hang him and so he hangs.

With the rule of law: A wanted gun man is caught by a mob.  They vote 30 to 1 to hang him.  But then the sherrif comes along and says "you can't just hang him, he has a right to a fair trial."  He's taken back to town and is judged by a jury of his peers.

As much as I despise the idea of politicians deciding my rights, I don't want my rights subject to the whims of society either.

As I said, anarchists (at least the ones I associate with) aren't against "government" --the services themselves, but rather, a "state" --an institution with a legitimate monopoly on said services.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hvMeB4R-CcQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hvMeB4R-CcQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

I'd also advice reading that essay I linked to.
He explains the idea more elegantly than I could:
"Now, before I end this essay, I need to make one thing very clear, because I think there is a very common misunderstanding of anarchists, and it is a misunderstanding rooted deeply in our very language. In this essay, I have consistently used the word state. I have tried to avoid the word 'government'. In the minds of many people, these words are synonymous. And it is for this reason that it is difficult to conceive of a life without the state.

It is a truism that interaction between men requires a sort of government. This is evident in all of man’s social dealings. A family exists in some sort of governmental arrangement, inasmuch as there are roles and understood norms of conduct within each family. Often, government in this sense is merely informal. In larger groups of people, it is likely to be more explicit. But what distinguishes these forms of government from the state is that the state is not voluntary. The state is really a very specific type of government. It is an authoritarian model of government that enforces its rule over anyone that it considers to be within its jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not they have consented to its rule. In this respect, a state is exactly like the mafia. In fact, the state differs from the mafia in exactly one respect. The sole difference between the state and the mafia is that a majority of the people in any given area acknowledge the legitimacy of the state. If the majority of people acknowledged the mafia, it would be called “the government”. That is the sole difference between the two organizations. And the reader would do well to reflect on that. Because it is a universally acknowledged principle that the minority are entitled to the same considerations as the majority. But how can this be if the majority reserve the right to impose, at the most fundamental level, a form of governance upon the minority that is opposed to his conscience?

It is sad that all of mankind’s 'national governments' are states. What an anarchist objects to is being forced to adhere to an organization to which he has not given his consent, from which he may not withdraw if it violates his conscience, and which provides its 'services' in a coercive rather than a voluntary way. At the heart of the anarchist argument is a desire to uphold peace and morality, freedom and brotherhood. An anarchist acknowledges a simple truth: that any relationship that is not consensual can only result in further violence; but that a relationship among a group of people that recognizes the value of each individual, that acknowledges his ultimate ability to choose whether to continue that relationship, is based on the greatest bonds of fraternity. This, and not bomb-throwing, is the legacy of anarchism." --Caleb Johnson in his essay, Why I’m an Anarchist

For example, Medieval Anarchic Ireland, a part of the governance (not the state as I gave rough definitions to) was actually an elected king.
The difference between that and a normal king?
Unlimited (or damn to close to unlimited) Succession, according to Fringeelements.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

A good essay but remember Shane's speech on the consent of the government?  How the constitution in fact restricts the government and not the people and it is legitimate because all people in government swear an oath to it?  It is they who are restricted and they agree to those terms as part of the job.

The anarchist seems to be under the impression that all governments are masters.  This isn't so, a proper government is in fact a servant to its people.  That was the whole idea behind the US even.

I think the model described there sounds nice until you realize it's trying to please everybody in a population filled with many differing views.  There are people who think stealing and murder is okay.  Is it unfair to impose the common view that begs to differ upon him?

I think all the values demonstrated in that article CAN be done with a limited government.  You don't have to consent to a limited government because there's nothing to consent to other than "don't harm others" which is pretty fair IMO.

[Travis Retriever]

A good essay but remember Shane's speech on the consent of the government?  How the constitution in fact restricts the government and not the people and it is legitimate because all people in government swear an oath to it?  It is they who are restricted and they agree to those terms as part of the job.

That still doesn't change the fact that, as Shane also said, if you don't pay your taxes, or obey the laws and regulations set up by the state, that you get arrested/fined/put in jail and if you resist that, you get shot; regardless of whether or not you've actually inflicted harm on anyone or not.
As I said to Shane (and never did get a response)
With all due respect, if the constitution is violated, what's it going to do; grow wings and teeth and attack whoever violated it?
where's the incentive to NOT violate it?

The anarchist seems to be under the impression that all governments are masters.  This isn't so, a proper government is in fact a servant to its people.  That was the whole idea behind the US even.

Because we're descriptive.  How can a monopoly of the legitimate initiation of force and fraud over a given area (The State) and its various levels (local, "state", federal) be anything else?

I think the model described there sounds nice until you realize it's trying to please everybody in a population filled with many differing views.  There are people who think stealing and murder is okay.  Is it unfair to impose the common view that begs to differ upon him?

Yes.  Because, said person is initiating force/fraud against another.

If you agree that people have the right to defend themselves, irregardless of the system (via that video "The Philosophy of Liberty"), why should it be any different for a stateless society?
It is this very same right of self defense from which the private institutions of police/courts/etc would gain their legitimacy (in addition to their emergence of course).

I think all the values demonstrated in that article CAN be done with a limited government.  You don't have to consent to a limited government because there's nothing to consent to other than "don't harm others" which is pretty fair IMO.

OK, what if I don't want to pay taxes, or use state services?
Would I have a choice to opt out, to succeed?

[Travis Retriever]

Before I forget, I suppose I should point out something else very important.
As before, I still recognize that, in terms of the world we live in, freedom is a spectrum, not a dichotomy as it is (or seems to be) in terms of the mind (the theory/explanation part).
Obviously, if the USA State, instead of taking 75% of our wealth, was only taking the 1%-2% needed to fund the courts, police and army, even without the right of succession, I'd be orgasmic.
Hell, even if the government started shrinking or (at least) stopped growing, I'd be very pleased.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

With all due respect, if the constitution is violated, what's it going to do; grow wings and teeth and attack whoever violated it?
where's the incentive to NOT violate it?

You get fired from your job as a representative of it.

At least that was the idea.  Sadly, the people let their guard down and paid for it.  That's what they mean when they say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

With information so much more freely available and religion not having near the power it used to wield, I think if limited government came back, it would be much harder to undermine it again.

How can a monopoly of the legitimate initiation of force and fraud over a given area (The State) and its various levels (local, "state", federal) be anything else?

By not allowing it to initiate force in the first place.  It's is intended to be purely defensive.  It may only act to counter the force of others.

Also, if anyone can create whatever laws and enforcers they want, doesn't this create a problem of juristiction?  If it's my lawmaker against yours, who wins?

It is this very same right of self defense from which the private institutions of police/courts/etc would gain their legitimacy (in addition to their emergence of course).

Here's the real problem: If the rules only apply to those who agree to them, then why even have them?

"Sorry officer, I don't agree to your law that vandalism is a no no, see ya!"

You say it's not fair to impose rules on people who don't agree to them but that's the catch 22 there.  There's always going to be people who don't agree to them or else they'd be self defeating anyway.

OK, what if I don't want to pay taxes, or use state services?
Would I have a choice to opt out, to succeed?

Ideally there would be none.  The LPC mentions this on their web site

"Methods have to be found to fund the legitimate functions of government, i.e. police, courts and judges. To replace all taxes is the ideal, but to many libertarians it is not clear that this is possible. There are other methods of funding government that should be tried. Convicted criminals can be made to pay police and trial costs as well as victims. User fees can be applied in many cases. Witholding government services may be possible. The military can be full of volunteers."

Personally, while I don't have a full plan on my desk at this very moment, I think a taxless government would be doable.  Heck, look at Hong Kong.  Flat 15% tax and yet their government posts a profit every year.

[Travis Retriever]

You get fired from your job as a representative of it.

:\

At least that was the idea.  Sadly, the people let their guard down and paid for it.  That's what they mean when they say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

It happens.

With information so much more freely available and religion not having near the power it used to wield, I think if limited government came back, it would be much harder to undermine it again.

No arguments there.

By not allowing it to initiate force in the first place.  It's is intended to be purely defensive.  It may only act to counter the force of others.

As you said later down, a volunteer government or something like that.

Also, if anyone can create whatever laws and enforcers they want, doesn't this create a problem of jurisdiction?  If it's my lawmaker against yours, who wins?

Emergence is by definition indeterminant.  However, if what we get in the computer industry is any indicator, because there is an incentive for them to be able to cooperate with one another, you'd seem them doing just that.
Just like how you get tons of standards from the IEEE with computers.

Here's the real problem: If the rules only apply to those who agree to them, then why even have them?

When did I say that?  I've stressed sucession; that's how you account for that.  Don't like what this set offers, then go to another (or registor, or whatever with another).

"Sorry officer, I don't agree to your law that vandalism is a no no, see ya!"

By that logic, the use of money debunks Say's Law.
The "officer" would be justified for the same reason the owner of the property would be justified in enforcing his own property rights, as I've already explained.
The "officer" would also just be a middle man acting on your behalf.
Again, if you agree that we have a right to defend our life, liberty and property from acts of aggression, and if you agree that police/courts/defense are simply an extension of that right, then why do you think it would suddenly be different in an Agorism or Anarcho Capitalism?

You say it's not fair to impose rules on people who don't agree to them but that's the catch 22 there.  There's always going to be people who don't agree to them or else they'd be self defeating anyway.

No.
I said (or at least meant), that it is illegitimate to force people to pay for services, or force them to use services they don't want at the barrel of a gun.  Not that common law precedents (rape, murder, etc) only apply to those who like to rape and murder.
And if there is a demand for that kind of force to combat those kinds of people, it too, will emerge.
There would arguily be people who don't want to be subjected to any of this.
That's fine.  Understand then that there would be far less people who don't consent.  I'm not against the idea of people forming states even within an anarchy, so long as they keep those of us who don't want any part of it out.
If, for example, they initiate force/fraud on me, it's a different story.
I never said it would be perfect.

Ideally there would be none.  The LPC mentions this on their web site

"Methods have to be found to fund the legitimate functions of government, i.e. police, courts and judges. To replace all taxes is the ideal, but to many libertarians it is not clear that this is possible. There are other methods of funding government that should be tried. Convicted criminals can be made to pay police and trial costs as well as victims. User fees can be applied in many cases. Witholding government services may be possible. The military can be full of volunteers."

Personally, while I don't have a full plan on my desk at this very moment, I think a taxless government would be doable.  Heck, look at Hong Kong.  Flat 15% tax and yet their government posts a profit every year.

Fair enough.  So basically, a volunteer government.

[Travis Retriever]

On a side note, this is probably the first time I've had a serious exchange of ideas on Anarchy.
It's been interesting.
I'm surprised people (myself included) could be this civil on the matter.

[Travis Retriever]

Another important point as what converted me to Anarcho Capitalism.
A short youtube comment conversation with ladyattis.

One of the biggest being was this conservation on this video's comments:  http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=o28lMXSqgaI

Transcripted--

Me:  "I have a question about Anarcho Capitalism as a system.
(No, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just trying to get a cogent and concrete response to this query.)
How could mob rule in an Anarcho Capitalism be prevented?"

ladyattis: "In this case, mob rule is best moderated by the factors of production. Folks don't like spending their own money or time on things. And if they can't trick others to do it for them, then they'll be hesitant to try on their own as the risk may be greater than the reward."

Me: "Alright.
I suppose this is a part of what this Anarcho Communist I once argued with who told me that in Anarchy there aren't laws, so much as agreed upon rules, where if you don't consent to said rules, you don't HAVE to follow them (unless it involes you violating a person's liberty, life, etc) the way we do in a statist society.
If the towns/cities making up an Anarchy were to allow mob rule/democracy to prevail, it sounds like they'd fall economically, so non mob rule is an advantage."

ladyattis: "Exactly, those communities that focus upon an individualist viewpoint would survive best in terms of economics as they would have to respect individual liberty to ensure equal opportunity (in terms of one's own capacities) for all. Today, people get slighted for ethnicity, age group, sex, place of birth, and many other factors in terms of opportunities, and mostly under the law."

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Don't like what this set offers, then go to another (or registor, or whatever with another).

Isn't this basically the "Love it or leave it" argument and wasn't it stated that you could defend any system with it, even a tyranny?

Here's the real tester: If such a society were invaded, would it be able to fend it off and more important, while remaining anarcho-capitalist when the smoke cleared?

[Travis Retriever]

Here's the real tester: If such a society were invaded, would it be able to fend it off and more important, while remaining anarcho-capitalist when the smoke cleared?

I can't say for sure.
However, if what ShaneDK, Fringeelements, Mary Ruwart and Harry Browne have stated is any indicator, it isn't as something I should lose sleep over.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

You should, during times of crisis is where any system is especially vulnerable and the opportunist weasels out there know this.

[Travis Retriever]

You should, during times of crisis is where any system is especially vulnerable and the opportunist weasels out there know this.

As Abe Lincoln could a test to.
And every other statist president could say.

Shane Killian and Harry Browne insist on a voluntary non standing army and a well armed populance (the best national defense).
I also like Browne's idea of missile defense system to ward off possible nuclear attacks.
Shane has also noted that if you don't get enough participation, then it isn't a war worth fighting.
Especially considering the fact that the vast majority of the wars fought by the USA have been caused via our meddling and whatnot.
Hence States tend to overproduce it as a "good" or "service".

Also, your point about sneakier people isn't really that strong an argument.
As ConfederalSocialist/Fringeelements has pointed out:  You can't maintain a state by force alone, and there would be no state apparatus to take control of; as it would be viewed as illegitimate.  Even if they bomb and destroy a single town (Anarchism being decentralized for the win) they'll have all the surrounding towns (presumably most of whom would be heavily armed, if the Wild West was any indicator) to deal with; not just the military.
You can argue that that's not so, that a military takeover is still possible, but then how would that be any different for a minarchy with no standing army (as Shane is also against) and a state apparatus (meaning that the State is viewed as legitimate) to take control over.

I'd advice looking at ConfederalSocialist/Fringeelements/CSMirror's videos on this.
He explains it in better detail than I have.
I've mostly been going roughly off memory with them anyways.

Also, I'm not saying it would last forever, but, as I said, the problem of non monopoly national defense is, at best, greatly over used and exaggerated.

[Travis Retriever]

Shane:  "No, but you need to realize that it's ridiculous of people to DEMAND that you show a system where it has worked BEFORE implementation."

as another youtube conversation went:

Jcolinsol:  "Takeover of what?

In order for ruler-ship to occur, their must be a perception of legitimacy. This is exactly how Anarchic societies throughout history have come to an end, the people agreed to the legitimacy of a ruler, and especially, the legitimacy of tithe.

Today's states are just violent collectives, it is their perception of legitimacy in the populace that gives them their rule. They ARE the tyrants.

Anarchism is not a political ideology, it is an accurate model of social structure."

Jcolinsol:  "I believe that Ireland became statist under British invasion. Iceland became statist when they agreed that Christianity should be the national religion and started paying tithe.

Anyone know how Anarchic Spain ended?

"power vacuum" is a funny term, I'm not sure how "power" and "vacuum" are defined defined.

Societal structure doesn't go away in Anarchy, it can simply evolves according to need. If we're talking coercive power, yeah there's less of it without the state, But we WANT that right?"

Shane:  "But we also want protection FROM coercion. We don't want Britain or anyone else invading our little anarchy and putting us under her iron boot."

Jcolinsol:  "Right, so if there is a demand for a service, such as protection or defense, then businesses or organizations will form to supply the demand. Nothing about the demand for protection services suggests that the service needs to be or should be provided by a violent monopoly institution."

[Lord T Hawkeye]

And every other statist president could say.

That would mainly be the weasels I was referring to.