“For the world at large? Agreed. For the participants? I would argue that the participants of a given enclave might be able to enjoy more freedoms than someone outside of it. Just a difference of opinion here.”
I would disagree. An enclave is an enclosed society which implies a sentiment of the “other” to those surrounding the enclave but are not apart of it. A distrust and general dislike would likely to arise from this situation and more then likely lead to a petty nationalism. Liberty is openess and toleration (as much as “libertarian” racists like to claim intolerance can be apart of a libertarian society). It is not just following the NAP. The NAP is a big deal, yes, but for a liberation society to prosper you need equality of law and other secondary tenets which foster a better environment. I, personally, do not think nationalism is one of them. I think it is ridiculous to be proud about where you are born or live as if doing so imbued you with special abilities or powers. Anyways, that is my opinion before I start ranting. I do not think an enclave propounds openness and toleration therefore it is, to me, less likely to express liberty.
"Um… well based on what I know about cointelpro and the FBI’s program to infiltrate the civil rights movement, the black panther party, and the nation of islam, and other activists organizations, all ending in the death or incarceration of prominent figures in said movement…it seems to me that this would be a real concern. Furthermore, if one were to have an organization at all, would the alternative be just to let people in a trust them? Are you suggesting you hire, say, an accountant and don’t do a criminal background check?
Granted, perhaps one does not advocate any kind of centralized action, in which case the position of not looking for agents to sow discord might make sense. However, we see that even in the occupy protests there were agent provocateurs and so even in decentralized systems, it seems to make sense to watch out for plants."
What would there need to be an accountant for in the first place? An accountant over what? And why do these individuals have the power to run background checks on you? You seem to be already centralizing power into specific institutions and giving them legitimacy in the case of background checks. Also why are you assuming that this enclave will automatically be on American soil? And why assume that government will automatically try to subvert it? Yes governments oppress people but you seem to have this whole conspiratorial nature about it. Do you think making an enclave more exclusive is going to make the government less suspicious about its activities? People are people. Some mean harm and some mean good. You cannot control emigration or immigration, you can attempt to but then you are just another government who thinks it has a claim over a territory.
Yes…it will. See the history of governments in general from ww2 onward. There is no shortage of examples of governments slaughtering their own people with only militias and enclaves being able to fend them off and retreat.
Yes governments harm people but my point was not that governments do not but that the enclave would use that justification to enact laws or behavior that does not promote liberty.
“The harm principle refers to direct physical harm. I agree a better definition should have been given, but similar to the oath doctors take to first do no harm, physical harm is implied.Therefore, under this definition, your example about competition is not valid.”
Well that is crap because now I can say fraud is not illegal because I am not physically harming you. People just need to stick to the NAP. It is clear, concise and encompassing.
"Well, I recognize that different people have different tolerances of religion. I am curious if you would push the button for the state. I would be skeptical of someone who would not IF they claimed to be an anarchist of some type. I am not saying you made this claim, of coarse, but the author did. The author seems to think religion and the state are two sides of the same coin ( there is another post about religion and the state similarities). Indeed, there are numerous examples of the church and the state working hand in hand throughout history. Cited I would say the history of the Catholic church, The deification of Japanese and Chinese emperors, and we can even go back to the god-king dynasties such as the pharaohcies. What about the inquisition, the conversion era, and so many other examples of religions persecuting people.
Even today, no one can get elected if they are not religious and most of the US is religious in some way. Religion and politics seem to go hand in hand. I agree eradicating them all might be a bit much lol, but I would say that clearly religion is and has been used as a tool to enslave people in addition to or in conjunction with the state."
Would I push the button on the state? Absolutely because the state is a coercive institution which is not voluntarily agreed upon in the first place. Religion is voluntary. You can choose to have it or you can choose not to have it. Just like control. Some people like to be controlled, it makes their lives easier. Some people do not like to be controlled because it makes it harder on them. This is my point about toleration finally ringing true. A society has to be tolerate of the voluntary choices that individuals make.
When you say closed, do you mean to new members or to the outside world? If the group is, say, doing business as one of the activities suggested, how is interacting with people, traveling and trading participating in a closed society? I agree a truly closed society is impossible, but I did not get that as a desired effect of the plan.
Sorry I am thinking a bit ahead with that earlier comment. I think that if a society such as an enclave conducts background searches on all of its immigrants then it will foster a sense of skepticism toward outsiders, thinking that they are trying to sow cords of distrust and discord. A society such as this will, naturally in my mind, slowly shut itself off in order to protect itself. While not completely closed, which like I said before is near impossible, it will close until it falls apart.
“The author said explicitly at one point that he/she chooses to value things and does not need to ascribe them to objective principles. This position seems consistent with moral nihilism as he defined it, as people coming together and choosing what mode of behavior the group will accept and not accept. If the harm principle is part of what these people choose to live by, then they really don’t need any other higher justification than their own will to choose it.”
Yea but that is the problem. There is no right or wrong in moral nihilism, they see it as ascetic tastes. It makes a societies’ legal code impossible because there can be no wrong behavior. Theoretically I could walk up to this author and harm him because hey I do not follow the harm principle and therefore feel no need to follow it. What can he say but Well ok? Moral nihilism is crap. It is just a philosophy for people who are disgruntled with the is-ought divide so they just throw that out the window and try to play it off.
"The author defines enclave as “Enclave: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory” This is a dictionary definition.
By definition, scientology, and freemasonry have enclaves within the US and around the world. They have a distinct culture. They operate in distinct social units. They have distinct territorial units (churches and lodges, respectively). They are all enclosed within numerous foreign, territories all over the world."
I think that makes it somewhat ambiguous then but I am not motivated enough to continue this line of argument.
“They most certainly do, however they give bullshit back as well. A case in point would be a town on Mexico where the entire police force resigned out of fear of the cartel’s reprisals. Dishing back what the government dishes out tends to humble them.”
Yea and in our own small ways we give shit back to the government as well. Fudge our taxes, run red lights, speed, DUI. I mean we’re not gunning cops down in the street but the principle is still there, just not the degree.
“. And from a ‘moral’ standpoint, depending on your definition of this, they can certainly be condemned as much as a local government can. But they have money, power, influence, and would be in a better position to defend themselves tomorrow if the government went full tyranny on us.”
I disagree. Where you see strength in numbers I see the first targets of crackdowns. If the government went “full tyranny on us” like you say then the very first people they would target are those who have the ability to strike back in great force.
“Are you suggesting that less than one half of 1% of the population participating I civil disobedience will shrink the government? Are you suggesting that civil disobedience is the way we achieve liberty in our lifetimes or, at all? I am having trouble seeing how civil disobedience would accomplish anything UNLESS it was embraced by millions and millions of people. We don’t have that kind of manpower or mass appeal.”
No, I am saying that if civil disobedience makes you happy and makes you feel like you are making a difference then do it. I am just waiting for the system to collapse. That does not mean another government may arise to take its place but hopefully I can squeak through the cracks and ensure that I am not apart of that new government. It is all about timing with me I guess.
But is it?
