Thanks for the Chat - I do value all of your opinions.
I understand that most Anarchists simply disagree with Minarchists & that most Minarchists simply disagree with Anarchists.
I also hope that one day, we can all do something more productive for our fellow man, rather than waffling on about our differences - because we both believe in the NAP
I simply see the NAP as something to aspire to, like not lieing or not being vindictive, you guys don’t seem to want to do anything unless the NAP is fundamentally embedded
Only if you see aggression being necessary to achieve non-aggression.
You spooked me when you start talking about democracy, but not everyone can vote, and that we need to be making sacrifices for the whole, instead of concentrating on our own welfare. That sounds dangerously like the left propaganda from the statists.
Instead of trying to reform the system, be a real minarchist and shrink it. Or better yet, consider the arguments against minarchism, and find your way over to anarchism.
So basically what you’re saying is: the NAP is something that should be followed except when it’s inconvenient. When it’s inconvenient not to steal, injure or murder (or threaten to do so) then one should steal, injure or murder (or threaten to do so).
NAP fundamentally allows for agression for defense - attacking the trenches of the aggresive expansionist on your own land is Non Aggressive.
I agree that I’ve never found anyone that can understand the concept of everyone being able to vote but not everyone should automatically be allowed to. It takes some deep thought to understand, but quite frankly most people are simply not interested in politics and just vote for the most photogenic media trained actors - methinks we deserve to be lied to!!!.
In a Democracy everyone should still have the opportunity to vote but methinks they should show the slightest bit of interest before they can.
My Direct Democrcy Forum has the shrinking of state control as a mandate, but only by showing that control can be handed over to the electorate can we do this - the only other option is revolution & as I said if this happened now i’d be running for the hills.
I have considered the arguments of the anarchist, including the fact/supposition that the state is evil and will always struggle/succeed in it’s quest for greater control.
I despair that Washngtons noble vision has been shredded and cast aside by your current leaders who think they know better.
Why on earth Anarchists believe that the sudden & complete disintigration of the establishment will gain popular approval is beyond me! - No Way Hozei - save your breath- stop trying to be trendy!!
I’m aware that may minarchists have become anarchists, but with an eight year old son I just don’t want to see the lights go out and have to rely on some anarchists NAP Driven altruistic willpower to restart the power station.
Good Grief - One should NEVER, NEVER steal, injure or Murder - but in all honesty can YOU not envisage a situation where you would - if you can’t i’ll give you a situation where YOU would.
My media and embargoes? I don’t recall ever placing an embargo on Cuba? I also don’t see how trying to achieve libertarian secession on the periphery is going to setback Libertarianism 100 years, Colonial America was very much on the periphery of the British State and yet it was there that a new revoluionary order was created.
But lets not underestimate the media machine of the state, if this small breakaway periphery in the UK started to become a threat then it would be gracefully strangled out of existence whilst society where shown colour images of the cold & hungry inhabitants.
This new & revolutionary order you refer to was not simply created, many thousands died in the war of independance.
Classic statist fallacy: Everyone (except for you and your family of course) is a murdering, raping animal who would run feral the very instant that the government goes away. Never mind that the government is made up of precisely the same sort of people.
No, in fact all but a very small percentage of people have no desire to initate force against one another. Without institutionalized force, that won’t change. It will become more evident.
The NAP philosophy is fundamentally embedded in the human psyche. Why is it that nearly everyone believes they have the right to be left alone or people can’t trespas on your property? Or that people can’t punch you in the face? It is not the state that tells us this is wrong it is our human nature that tells us this is wrong. The state shouldn’t be allowed to do anything that if an indivudual did would be wrong.
Well you may call this a Statist Fallacy, but I can only speak therough personal experience
2 weeks ago my Niece, Boyfriend & three children Fled their council house in Hucknall Nottingham after being Burgled & Identifying the street thugs responsible to the Police, They came back and threatened to Shoot him.
They have moved their valuables into my garage and currently live with my sister in a two bedroomed house.
Police response was " we can’t do anything as we have no proof - we know this person well & you are not the only people he is terrorizing, but we are powerless"
MP Response was “I’ll assign a councillor to it”
Councillor Response was " why did you contact the MP, I said I would look into it, sorry we can’t relocate you to another council house, you already have one"
They have not saved enough money yet to pay 2Mths upfront Private Rent even though Peter works full time.
This is my world & hopefuly you can understand the publics lack of support for disbanding the police force (as crap as they are!) in the name of an ideology that they have never understood
The logic of your post escapes me. The story is tragic and horrible - and you know that of the people reading it, roughly 100% will think so. You don’t expect people to say “What’s the problem?” Why is that? Is it not because you recognize exactly what you are trying to disprove - that the vast majority of people are non-aggressive and are horrified by such aggressive actions? You’ve tried to disprove this claim by showing that one person is aggressive, but that would only work if the claim was that everyone was non-aggressive. Further, you know that people will be moved by the story, precisely because people recognize that such things shouldn’t happen.
Next, you explain the typically inept, bureacrat police and government response. The logic there would have to be “Look at the lousy job the police do (while shielded from market competition) - that’s why we need them!” So, it seems you believe that we need inept and bureacratic respose to aggression rather than speedy and effective response. In that case, you are correct, we ought to have a state. I doubt that’s what you really think, though.
I hear what your saying Liberty but people here in the UK are not very brave when it comes to threats from machette’s & guns, the thugs father had previously been jailed for attacking someone with a Machette.
JAl The Logic of my post was simply that I’m not yet convinced that an Anarchists commerial police force would offer a more speedy and effective response to a financially poor family.
I obviously believe the majority of people are non-aggresive, but am also aware that many are bullys
We are seeing more & more instances over here of street gangs terrorizing entire neighbouhoods.
Niether of which in any way explains why we need to have a state around, who not only monopolizes the right to use force, but also the courts.
Scenario 1 - the market scenario: You get to choose the DRO you find to be the least expensive and the most efficient and service-oriented, and dump their a§§es whenever they fail to meet your demands as a consumer. In the case of a conflict, you go to the arbitor you find to be the least expensive, and the most just and service-oriented.
Scenario 2 - the state scenario: You have only one choice. They make the laws. You not only pay a monopoly price for their service, but you must also pay for things they do which do not constitute service in any way. You have a government-run police force enforcing goverment-created laws. In the case of a conflict with the government, you go to a government court, run by government employees who decide whether it is you or the government who is in the right, and even if you are found to be right, they, not you, decide what they have to do about it.
What you are defending is a mandatory conflict of interests with the power to use violence.
And we’re seeing that in what context, again? Leave aside the fact that these street gangs thrive economically only when victimless crimes exist - we’re seeing it with the government running the police. How is this an argument for a government police force?