The way I see it is this. Anarchy means there is a reset. And from that reset, smaller more local structures, based on voluntaryism will emerge. Although I imagine that coercive structures will also emerge.
There is this idea that BP used to have, that anarchy would eventually remove all of the negative societal traits he personally found distasteful. I don’t agree with that. Your values, my values, RPG’s values are not necessarily going to survive or thrive.
A big mistake (IMO) is trying to predict what will come out of anarchy. It’s very possible there will be a new state, with even harsher institutions.
You’re misrepresenting me. I never claimed that. I have claimed that long-term social evolution will cause some of our traditions to disintegrate though and that clinging to such traditions is unhealthy and causes stagnation, and I have claimed that the incentives of a free society runs entirely counter to the goals of ethnic nationalists. That’s hardly the same thing as thinking that anarchy is an immediate transformation into social utopia.
??? What are you asking? I think that certain cultural traditions and bigotries are counterproductive to the likelyhood and sustainability of a free society. I think that clinging to such traditions causes stagnation, and that (all else being equal) such things are likely to be outcompeted over the course of a very long-term process if left to freedom of association.
Not my problem. I don’t think I’m using too esoteric language, especially for libertarian dialogue. You made a misrepresentation of my position from which I have no idea where you inferred, a claim about what I think. I clarified what I think. You proceed to brush it off or lack understanding. There’s nothing I can do about that besides try to clarify.
I’ll get to that. In the meantime, stop trolling me.
Where did I say “immediate transformation”? I let you slide on utopia. Only your ego would assume your vision of a free world would prevail, and that it is utopian.
Juan, when you stop scrunching up your posts so I can quote them easily, I will respond to you. This is a freebie. Get your posting routine together, will ya?
I guess.
Cool.
No.
Yes.
Possibly.
Freedom leads to the opportunity to establish monopoly. Freedom does not censor monopolists. They are free to give it a shot.
Peace is love. War is love. War is terror. Love is terror. This is kinda fun.
Under a free market, all models might be tested. That’s not to say that they will all thrive or survive, but if enough people with guns get together, with people seeking security, and decide to have elections and democracy, and the people go along with it, you’re going to get a state. If they are all (insert any religion here) you might end up with a theocracy.
It can happen. Will it last? Is it right? That’s not what I wrote. Only that a free market will allow people to practice socialism for example, the only difference being, they won’t have a monopoly on violence, and thus, they won’t have a monopoly with their form of government, or culture or whatever.
Models which operate using violence can’t be regarded as part of the (free) market.
Of course. That’s exactly the current situation. Which I’d never describe as a consequence of a free society/market/anarchy.
If you’re talking about coercive socialism then it won’t, by definition. Again, if we’re talking about a framework in which coercion is used then we’re not talking about a free market. Now, if by anarchy you mean “might makes right” then your description is correct.
Sure they can. Anarchy just means there is no monopoly on force. It doesn’t mean everyone is going to resolve their disputes with pillow fights and kool-aid.
That’s irrelevant. I already cautioned against assuming you know what will happen under anarchy. You do not. A bunch of people might say, “Freedom is scary, I want police and a Senator!”. And the market will fill that need.
Well once socialism is established, and there is the first dispute about property with capitalists, then it’s gunna be people busting caps and Reisman trying to lay the smackdown with his Tech 9. Whoever is better at violence, is probably going to win the property battle. And it might be a violent, coercive, socialist state.
Look, I am all for the wonderful anarchy you are hoping for. I’m all for non-violence. But I don’t think it is going to happen.
No they can’t. The market is the network of volunary exchanges. Force is excluded by definition.
Your definition, which you seem to have borrowed from Byzantine, is wrong.
What I’m hoping for is a free society - a society where violence is minimized. Libertarians think that the best way to minimize violence is by abolishing the state, but abolishing the state is a means, not an end. If abolishing the state would lead to more oppresion, as you seem to believe, then there would be no point in aboloshing it.
How do you know ? Oh I see. You’re a conservative after all.
I don’t know how you do it, but please stop scrunching up your replies. It’s a big waste of time to go through to find the breaks between you and I in the quotes.
This is the text in the quote window, all scrunched together.
This is text cleaned up by me, but how it probably should look.
Only among the people who agree not to use force. Not everyone is going to play by the rules. Statism might be dead, but people with statist mentalities towards power and control will likely persist. It’s a question of being able to resist those people if they don’t have or gain a monopoly on violence.
Assertion or argument?
Well, in the west, the state is not very violent, it just threatens violence. People in the west don’t know what living under violence, whether it is night time raids on your house by soldiers, or bombs dropping on you, or lifetime imprisonment without trial is. They pay their taxes because they are afraid of the IRS, not because the streets run red from the blood the IRS spills. Coercion doesn’t have to be violence, just the threat of violence. There are a LOT of ways to threaten people.
I’m not saying it will lead to more oppression, but that is a possibility. An end to the monopoly on violence, might mean that people choose to fight back every time someone tries to tax. There might be more violence in protest. That is a possible scenario.
Ad Hom? Weak stuff Juan. I don’t know, but if you have more people able to protect themselves with violence, you might see more violence. I’d love for us all to get along and no one gets hurt. Unfortunately, there are bad people who would like to bully, rape and rob us, so we might have to fight them, and we might lose. I don’t think I am describing anything too far fetched.
Hmm… from the screenshot it looks like the composing mode isn’t activated for Juan, as my composition background is white.
Or it could be a difference in theme colors, but if its the lack of composition mode then the reason it keeps appearing as scrunched together would be because the quotes are presented in plain text (i.e. no formatting by default).
It’s rather anoyying, and I remember it hapenning to me awhile ago with a different forum. I sadly don’t remember how it was fixed.
I also use FF (2 & 3, doesn’t occur on either), so I’m at a lost for solution here… :\