I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist. Does anyone else think that these morons who keep posting here, and often have stock avatars, are paid or part of some halfwit statist group though?
Perhaps this is just some side effect of the incredible sense of liberation I feel from “getting it”. It just makes me sad and confused that this person supposedly has no care that he advocates suspending rationality, yet we should trust him in his statist apologia. It’s either an embarrassing Lebensformen or a despicable and annoying dog and pony show.
Anyhow z123456, I know that you will conveniently ignore anyone who calls you out on your bullshit, and just keep spewing as hard as you can. Entertain me though with your definition of “planetary justice” from here.
You have to work for your money. Giving up your money = giving up your work = less “freedom”. Technically you retain all your self ownership though because you can choose to stop paying MDAs at any time.
Many are reluctant to point out historical examples to you. This is because even if no anarchist society had ever existed, it would not say anything about the optimality of such a society. There’s a first time for everything.
I think you are convinced by the historical arguments because you think government has always been there and always will be, but the origins of government are far shakier and short-lived than you might imagine. The first governments arose when people started settling down and practicing agriculture. Barbarians came in and subjugated these farmers and the feudal system grew out of that. (Btw, this example does not prove anarchy is futile, it just proves that if a bunch of buff guys from yonder sneak up on you, you’re screwed)
Practically all modern governments grew out of this scenario. Its not like governments sprang up around the world spontaneously for different sets of reasons. The transition between hunter-gatherer and agriculturalist society is just particularly vulnerable to foreign threats. Unfortunately, information traveled slowly and the serfs never got a chance to correct their mistake of being caught unprepared.
But the free market is all about correcting mistakes. We’re very good at it now. Bring it on Attila!
Well, there’s always the example of Gaelic Ireland, which had no monopolistic rulers / law for 1000+ years (and fought off English invasions for 600 of those years). There’s also Medieval Iceland, which also had no monopolistic rulers / law for several hundred years.
Though it’s likely if you were really open to finding out such things, you would have done so already on your own.
LS: Couple of days ago you asked me to explain the meaning of “a lot” of violence that I believe a realistic model of human self-interest MUST take into account . “A lot” means “enough” to make a society of free human agents unsustainable without uniform laws and enforcement.
Refer to the following reactions:
Refer also to the uniform laws and enforcement that this (and every other) forum of free human agents REGULARLY has in order to make itself sustainable:
Much in the same way I described is needed for a sustainable larger society, each agent participating in this forum is COERCED into giving up SOME freedom to the uniform rules and enforcement, for the sake of sustainability. Much in the same way I refered to the 1000+ experiments in human organization through history, there are also NO forums (among the thousands online) without moderators enforcing uniform rules over the agents participating in them.
I also just thought of a better way to explain what I mean. Consider “100%” agents containing 100% violence in their self-interest model (rabid wolfes, “shoot first ask questions later” lunatics, etc) on one end, and on the other end of the spectrum “0%” agents containing 0% violence in their self-interest model (“turn the other cheek” buddhists – not many other examples, but just imagine an evolved agent that would NEVER resort to violence). A society of “100%” agents is ONLY sustainable if they are ALL caged and chained so they don’t gouge each others guts out resulting in 0% freedom (100% coercion) . On the other hand, a society of “0%” agents MAY be sustainable without ANY limitations to freedom (including laws and enforcement of any kind) resulting in 100% freedom (0% coercion) or ANARCHY.
Well, place humans (with their current level of evolution) anywhere on this scale. I claim that they’d have to be pretty darn close to “0%” violence agents in order to make coercion-less society sustainable. If we agree on this, then the only thing we may disagree on is where exactly the humans are on this sliding scale. Obviously, my “x%” violence assumption in the model is higher than yours and that’s where our disagreements come from.
You are not being coerced for you are not being forced to participate in this forum against your voluntary choice. The rules are a condition for participation authorized by the owners of this website but participation is voluntary! No individual freedom or private property of yours was violated.
I’m not sure I see. I agree that Lord Kelvin should have noticed that even ‘empirical’ evidence disproved his point…
But that only shows that he was a bad theoretician (like the miniarchists…) and a bad observer, like the miniarchists…
Replace an ‘authority’ like Lord Kelvin with an ‘authority’ like von Hayek (hey! two noblemen) and you get the same result. Clueless conservative theoreticians who believe that the future must be like the past…
By the way, what’s your political position scineram ? Do you have any theoretical objection to self-government ?
Aren’t African countries such as Somalia examples of Anarchies? They mind as well be since the government can barely do anything to maintain order. Somalia has private militias, as does the Congo, Central Africa, Eastern, and Southern. You can correct me, but I don’t think its helping those countries at ALL.
Would this still not be considered anarchy in the sense that there is no state? A state being a body that holds the so-called “legitimate” monopoly of violence over a given territory?
This is beside the point. Firstly, we are talking about anarchy not the US government. And secondly, on a per capita basis, I think warfare, poverty and theft (ok minus taxation perhaps ) caused by militias, within the likes of Somalia and the Congo, are a little more common than in the States.
BTW. I realize that Somalia and the Congo are not anarcho capitalist: eg the institution of private property does not exist. However, I can not see how the institution of private property could exist for long in an anarcho-capitalist society and what would stop private militias in that case from acting in a similar fashion to African militias.
Governments never maintain order? This is an oversimplification. Can you think of a time, before the establishishment of the modern state, where society was more ordered?
It depends on how you define anarchy. I define it as a society that refuses to obey the dictates of a government that has not obtained their consent. Given that the governments in Somalia have not obtained consent of those that they govern, it is not anarchy.
You have to have a civilization that is morally advanced enough to recognize that you cannot just kill people on a whim. Africa, as such, does not qualify. The United States does.
Who kills more, governments or criminals? Is order maintained because of the government, or in spite of it?
I cannot quantify an answer to your question, given that “ordered” is so subjective. Not only that, but how do we account for how much technology provides order to society? To conclude that society is “ordered” because of the modern state is impossible.
The point that others have made is that civil society, culture, etc, is very different in America vs Somalia and its surrounding countries, and still would be so in a state of anarchy. So America vs Somalia is not an apples to apples comparison.
The only fair comparison is to see how Somalia, which lacks a monopolistic gov’t, is doing relative to the countries around it and relative to how it was doing under a monopolistic state.
On that basis, Somalia is doing fine: It’s situation has improved relative to itself and relative to the countries around it:
) caused by militias, within the likes of Somalia and the Congo, are a little more common than in the States.