Indeed. But some people here use ‘anarchy’ to mean competition in the provision of positive, arbitrary legislation, not competition in securing rights to life, liberty and property.
So, they talk about an amoral free market in legislation, not about a market providing enforcement of individual rights.
To me that sounds quite close, if not equal to, “might makes right”.
What standard is that ? Is it some material entity which exists in space ? Where is it ?
You first need an environment where a large number of people recognize the property rights and liberty of others and not just themselves while having the will to defend it. Otherwise you risk being outnumbered and overpowered by statist or bad guys. It is not as simple as defending yourself against aggressors. Otherwise I could bring anarchy to the US by defending myself against the US government if attacked for not paying taxes and refusing to acknowledge them. That wouldn’t go over to well for me. You need to take into account the size and power of your enemies and allies and only after having enough of a majority before you can truely establish anarchy through defense of your property and maintain it.
Morally, my right to be free is not contingent on any majority, nor will any majority be able to preserve my own rights and freedoms under anarchy.
While the success of achieving and maintaining anarchy may be dependent upon massive withdrawl of consent from the state, it’s very important we never again think that there is safety in #s.
To respond to Juan, this isn’t might makes right. This is right can only be kept by might. If you will not fight for, or to keep, your freedom, you will never have it.
Strength/might/power are necessary for an effective defense of liberty.
I never said that your right was morally contingent on the majority. I just said that you would need enough strength to defend your liberty. Having numbers is one way to acquire strength. It could be some other kind of power for defense. There is nothing wrong with having numbers as long as it is voluntary. You can have a group where there wouldn’t be any obligation to vote on common goals and you can leave at any time. You would be joining in numbers because it would be beneficial to you as an individual. Like if someone in the neighborhood proposes that we work together in defense. I would agree to help in defense because it furthers my goal of defending my property. If I want to leave and change my mind for whatever reason I do so unless you join a security company or enter some kind of contract to work for a certain time.
I don’t know what you mean by this but if you mean that having a large numbers doesn’t necessarily mean safety. I agree. We could have 100 people with pistols and 1 aggressor with a tank. Also if you mean that a majority in itself is no defense against tyranny. I agree. A complacent majority might as well be nothing at all. A small group of people can always have power over the majority. It doesn’t mean that having numbers can’t be advantageous. Having numbers increase the cost of aggression and works against the aggressive state. If you are small in number you might end up like Waco or Ruby Ridge where people just forget about you. If you have thousands of people I doubt the current government at this time in history can justify that. Not saying they can’t but it does make things harder. Massacres may even lead to people revolting and create martyrs.
Businesses work in numbers all the time so I don’t think it is morally wrong to do so. The whole point of liberty is to have free will and the right to property. Nothing wrong with groups as long as they are not coercive.
"This site is not devoted only to value-free economics. Even if it were, the people interested in value free economics are interested in it because of ‘ideological’ reasons.
Your own positions are ideological. The only difference is that you don’t seem to understand that’s the case, or pretend not to in order to claim that your position is just “the laws of biology”. Either way, your position is bunk."
Fascism is itself less ‘ideological’, in so far as it openly proclaims the principle of domination that is elsewhere concealed.
adorno
Yes.
No. I meant the mob is fickle. If your liberty rests on a majority, as soon as someone with a charismatic persona comes along and sells them on politics or religion, the majority will enslave you.
You must have the means to defend yourself. As soon as you relinquish the ability to defend yourself for the ability to stand in a crowd, and hope the government won’t commit genocide, you’re a lamb.
They’ve had no problem killing millions of Iraqis and Afghans. They are increasingly moving towards the model of Mao and Stalin. That is why they are erecting the police state.
They all are in reality. These people who are horrified by Somalian anarchy are all far too afraid to go live amongst the darkies, worse yet those savage blacks are actually defending their property.
But if you ask me, that’s great, it’s just more proof that when the state collapses and we’re no longer subsidizing pseudo intellectuals telling us that whites are evil that people will organize along cultural lines.
And sure enough, with property rights gone so to has most of civilization, and what follows is the type of behaviour that most people here seem to applaud, behaviour that wouldn’t be tolerated over in Somalia.
I’m sorry to tell you, Somalian anarchy is no accident, that is how anarchy is, and always will be. You might by hoping for some sort of “just” provider of defense, you’re not going to get it. If you don’t like cultural norms in a certain area, stay the fuck out, or you’d better hope somebody has got your back when you try selling drugs in the part of town populated by Muslims.
I never said anything about having a “just” Provider of defense. I just said if you want to maintain your property you would need some kind of defensive power greater than that of the aggressors whether it is power in numbers or arms. What you are saying with “if you don’t like the laws get/stay out” is the same claim statist make. Isn’t having law over somebody else’s property within the imaginary borders of their state the primary function of a state.
I’d like to know what your definition of state and anarchy is. Somalia itself is not a state but lands within somalia are controlled by several states. Somaliland in the North and the UIC in the south with smaller entities like the interim government and warlords elsewhere. All claim jurisdiction and a coercive monopoly of law on whatever land they have claim over without homesteading. If that is anarchy then the world is anarchy.
No, the state creates a single uniform law and applies it to all of its subjects as a result of egalitarian delusions. Without the state there would be numerous different customs respected and enforced by those who adhere to the norms in question, moreover, these norms would be geographically defined. Most importantly they would be in competition with other areas: that means if you don’t like the norms in question buy the property of the owner or pay some people to have your back when you go and attempt to change things.
The world is in a state of anarchy with regards to the relationships of nation states.
Here’s my best guess, you don’t like the way things are being run over there so you define it as not being anarchy. I’m also guessing that the fact that Somalia is being run along certain principles people here aren’t too fond of, name family and tradition, has got into quite a dilemma with regards to US involvement in the area.
I don’t know what you expect of anarchy, but you’re going to be in for a shock.
I maintain a monopoly on rules for my property and if you don’t abide by them, then I’ll kick you out. Does this mean I run a “statist” household?
See, I don’t believe might makes right. But at the end of the day, might is all that really matters.
Somalia is a piece of land controlled by warlords. It’s 100% statist. End of story…as far as libertarianism is concerned.
Of course, for ‘anarcho’ conservatives somalia can have some interest since it’s a place where tribal governments are ‘free’ to abuse individuals according to ‘cultural norms’.
Love it or leave it.
Not really sure what you mean by that. My first guess is that you believe that might makes right.
So what is the UIC, somaliland, ineterim government if not an entity that applies uniform laws over a designated land which is geographically defined. Just because the UN does not geographically define the lands of these state entities doesn’t mean these entities don’t define them themselves. Nowhere do you even bring up property and jurisdiction of the individual over their own property. Aren’t norms and customs just uniform laws in themselves. Isn’t the state just a custom that everyone follows. If so there is no such thing anarchy but total statism as long as the individual can’t rule over his own property and others can rule over you in your property by whatver law, custom or norm.
Once you start applying rules outside your property by decree over land that you did not homestead, you yourself become a state.
No. I never said anything about not having jurisdiction over your own property. I’ve said the opposite. I just claim that nobody has jurisdiction over someone else’s property. So if I homestead near a town and the people don’t like what I’m doing (drugs was the example). I’ll defend myself against those statist authorities. All is useless if you don’t have the power to defend against them.
No, I believe in an objective system of ethics, but I don’t think that the objective system of ethics I believe to be correct matters the slightest in regard to a stateless society.
I don’t know the specifics about Somalia, but I’ll say this, from you’ve said I don’t believe these areas are anything like states, now, perhaps they may not be libertarian or anarchist by your standards but the fact of the matter is they don’t set a uniform law in order to equalize people, they enforce the laws that are customary in that part of the nation.
Because it’s not relevant, if I own a house in the middle of the black neighbourhood I may well be within my rights to go get my mail in a white cloak and a white pointy hat, it doesn’t mean anything because at the end of the day as long as the blacks have force on their side nobody is going to stop them putting a brick through my window or whatever.
No.
No.
It must be horrible for you to know that no matter what happens no defense agency and no society is going to work this way, neither is Somalia, now you can go over there and hand out The Nicomachean Ethics or whatever work by John Locke you like, but at best you’ll be told to go away.