I believe that is known as a “failed state.”
Well, as usual you contribute nothing. Maybe you can tell us what the functional difference between being robbed by the state and being robbed by an individual criminal is?
That is the point, the stongest state in the world is unable to have a monopoly of force because some people have stood against them. So for the people who are fighting them they are not under the same umbrella of slavery that you put yourself.
Isn’ t the government just a group of people? Aren’t they human just like you?
So if you try to counteract criminal you are taking risk, arent we jsut talking about the level of risk in dealing with criminals…why give them special status?
Yes, the criminals normally do not give you the means to defend yourself. Are you waiting for the state to give you the means to defend yourself from their criminal behavior?
Under your philosophy you are entirely dependent on someone else giving it to you. You have no inherent freedom. You have no natural rights…you are in self-imposed slavery. Your freedom depends on the criminal having a change of heart.
(I’m not arguing what AJ was trying or not trying to say.)
Max. I really liked what you said here. This is why I think the government is a corrupt PDA and anarchy is now. At any point in time when states are near to none existent it can’t be doubted that there will be criminal humans that may try to become governmental. It’s how it all began at one point in time in history anyway. Governments are not simply here. They are created, established, and grow in strength or weakness over time. The whole what will happen is contingent. So it is as much as a possibly as not a possibly after the current criminal governments go away concerning if justice will be upheld or not. But whether it was in the past, presently, or in the future It is about individuals drawing lines in the sand to try to put an end to it.
decent Daily Mises today that converges on this by the way too
If you’re going to use leading phrases, you need to make them comprehensive. The US is not an anarchy because people do not have sufficient force as against the government and its nuclear weapons. If the people were as heavily armed as the government, then the government would exist solely by the people’s choice.
AJ’s definition is a very good one. The NAP is an ethical and hortatory principle that is irrelevant to the strict concept of anarchy.
Yes, I agree, it totally hinges on how many people are willing to resist and how dedicated they are.
They are just a criminal group, I agree. The only special designation they have is that they can determine significantly the terms on which the entire body of people in the US can have access to force, whereas an individual criminal can only determine those terms for a few people. Naturally, this power of the State derives almost solely from their perceived legitimacy among the population. I think I get where you’re taking this, and I think I am with you on that.
I’ve been talking about useful definitions, not my philosophy.
You need to understand the difference between not having sufficient force and a lack of willingness to use that force. The US population has more than sufficient force to overthrow the government. Just like every other country in the world. This doesn’t happen in many places because if things are not that bad people make the calculation it is not worth the risk. This is the same calculation people make whenever they encounter criminals, sometimes they give in, sometimes they resist, sometimes they evade. In the US there are millions of people in prison, ten of millions people evade taxes, not everyone is in dutiful compliance with the state. I would estimate more than 50% of the US population violates some law at one time or another.
This is one of the most insightful things you have written lately. I am happy you made this thread.
With the size of the federal register, and the fact that interpretation of the law is completely subjective, I would say the number is 100%.
Unless, you understand and can employ Marc Stevens argument based on standing (the applicability of law). Then, we might bring that number down to about 4 or 5%.
I think maybe a big point is publicity. Tax evaders and such aren’t publicly known to be tax evaders. Of course, the state does its own stuff secretly as well - stuff that would erode the fabric of its perceived legitimacy and turn passive resistance into active resistance. The people may legitimize some forms of state aggression but not others, as well as legitimize some forms of resistance against the state’s aggression but not others. And this varies from person to person.
So yeah, that makes the lines blurrier. It seems that things only work nicely when you abstract everyone as “the people” and pretend they have some unified view on what is legitimate or tolerable. When you account for the fact that “the people” are individuals, all with unique political philosophy and breaking points, and with their own unique habits of disobeying laws and thwarting state efforts, all the other abstractions disappear as well.
So unless the political philosophy and willingness of individuals to act upon such can clearly be abstracted to represent the dominant majority of society, it is folly to rely on any one or two criteria to define the situation.
The last publicly well known and respected tax protester was tossed in jail in 2005. He was not allowed to admit the Tax Law book and regulation book as evidence. I don’t know how old he was when he was submitted to prison but it lead me to think he would die there. The whole story gets my blood boiling.
Awwwwwww. Poor Max. He doesn’t like that I refuted his bullshit with facts. Awwwww.
Cry me a river, Max. And learn what words mean.
Refuted me? What facts? You need some more oxygen in the bubble your living in.
Yes, I agree. It comes down to the individual. So any notion of arriving at anarchy begins and ends with yourself.
I agree. I was going to say 100%, but I figured somebody would jump in with some story about how their grandmother always obeyed the law or something.
Yes, but one individual is easily overshadowed by millions of others. If you are an anarchist living in a society where almost all people support democratic principles and there is a democratic state, few would consider this blurry - they’d simply say it’s a democracy. I’d agree.
Our goal in my mind isn’t to make things blurrier; it is to establish such virtually indisputable support for anarcho-capitalism.
Yep. Now then, Max: stop playing your childish little game. It’s really old.
This make you dependent on what other people want for your life. It implies you do not have control over your own freedom. If your freedom is dependent on getting a majority then how do we differ from the people who want democracy?
This illustrates my point. You are making your freedom dependent on the people you have labelled criminals.
It is clear that you have decided not to contribute to this thread. I do give you credit for taking an intellectual beating though. Once again, you have demonstrated my intellectual superiority over you with your weak replies. The adults are talking now though so back to your parents basement to move your imaginary armies around.
That stuff doesn’t further the discussion. It actually sabotages it.
Property rights are based upon other people respecting your property claims. If you consider absolute property ownership an essential element of freedom, as I do, then you cannot be free without influencing others to hold similar ideals to your own. You can do this by peacefully and persuasively spreading your philosophy, or you can do so by inflicting violence upon those who defy your property claims, forcing them to hold your views in order for them to benefit from any social/economic relationship with you.
The difference from democracy to me is less about the popular will of the people being expressed, but the absence of a state. If most people don’t want individual property rights, there likely won’t be individual property rights, both under anarchy and democracy. Of course, if the popular will of the people is to violate the property claims of the richest 20% of the people, and that 20% successfully defend their property against such aggression, it is highly unlikely such will be a sustained situation. The popular will of the people will likely see the ineffectiveness and costliness of such aggression and instead recognize the property claims as rights and respect them, as such an arrangement stands to bring benefits to both parties. What’s important to realize is that it is not the effective defense of property claims that creates property rights - it is the willingness of others to respect those claims, and even to help enforce them on behalf of the owners.
I don’t consider myself free if I am constantly compelled to spend most of my time defending my freedom. I am free when human opposition to my choices is minimal. I fully admit I consider my freedom dependent upon the philosophy and behavior of others.