| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 6:48 AM
Location: Behind the computer
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | The individual, although capable, if left to fend for himself indefinitely, would be over run in a gang-warfare environment. Anarchist structure is a gang-warfare environment. |
But these "gang-warfare environment" wouldn't be anarchistic, now would it?
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12844
Local time: 10:48 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | CET wrote: | | What gave you the impression that I was? I agreed with Jason as to the purpose of government, which has little to do with my personal political beliefs. |
Nothing, I thought you were calling yourself one.
And I'm not sure you agreed with Jason, he only said what the minarchists' position is, I don't think he's one himself.
Anyways the whole misunderstanding took place precisely because you said you agree with the minarchist position, yet I know your political stance is not compatible with it.
Well, nevermind, sorry for the confusion. |
I didn't say that I agreed with his position, I agreed with his definition.
Now that you've pigeon-holed me, just because I don't accept the Libertarian platform carte blanche doesn't mean I'm not a Libertarian. 
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 1:48 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sal1981 wrote: | | lumpymunk wrote: | | The individual, although capable, if left to fend for himself indefinitely, would be over run in a gang-warfare environment. Anarchist structure is a gang-warfare environment. |
But these "gang-warfare environment" wouldn't be anarchistic, now would it? |
O_O
O_O
O_O
O_O
Did he read it?
O_O
O_O
O_O
O_o
| Quote: | | Anarchist structure is a gang-warfare environment. |
Immediately after the statement that provoked his question...
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7246
Local time: 10:48 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | The difference in my opinion is really a matter of terminology, between capitalist government and anarchist "structure."
Property rights must be enforced by a third party that follows an agreed upon standard that the initiation of force is wrong. |
Doesn't need to be a centralised government though. Doesn't need to be a government at all.
There is a big difference between a service provider, and a government.
I'll forward my case throughout this post.
| Quote: | | The individual, although capable, if left to fend for himself indefinitely, would be over run in a gang-warfare environment. Anarchist structure is a gang-warfare environment. |
Firstly, it's not proven that an individual WOULD be over run by gang-warfare.
This assumes no effective enforcement of rights.
Secondly, why are people so worried about anarchy?
There are plenty of examples where a government can not adequately enforce things in general.
We have the example of prohibition. We have the example of child prostitution in south east Asia.
We have the famous example of police corruption in New York in the 1960's.
Also, the anecdotal example provided by my grandfather.
He worked on oil rigs in Saudi Arabia during the 1950's.
He bought hooch from an Arab man who distilled in a trailer.
The "police" were also "customers" and I don't doubt that they still are in other cases.
It's not a mater of definition. There is a clear difference. A government- as the only third party,
is necessarily a monopoly. A self DEFINING monopoly. Self legislating, and so dangerous, and
I will show why farther down.
| Quote: | | The third party "government" must be expansive enough to invoke authority over all of the governed |
It dosn't have to be over ALL of them though.
Your local police force dosn't patrol a city on the other side of the continent.
State and provincial laws are different from each other, sometimes drastically so.
Society hasn't collapsed.
| Quote: | | this is something local gangs people who would place their investments in cannot do. |
Neither can governments though. More over, the cost, effective or not, is legislated.
The only opportunity to revoke there mandate without breaking the law, is democratically,
and THEY control that process.
| Quote: | | That is something that the anarchist "system" doesn't allow. |
Not true. There could be multiple police firms, and multiple judiciary academies.
All of which could communicate with each other and subscribe to at least a common law.
All of which would be supported much as public television is supported today, and non
of which would have any incentive to ignore or sabotage the enforcement of rights to any
person paying or not. This is like the ludicrious myth of the evil privet fire houses.
What incentive dose an insurance company have to let a building burn down?
The emblems posted on buildings were a form of advertising, not an indicator of which house
to save and which to ignore or intentionally burn down, and so shoot the rates up,
and narrow the market share of your own firm as well as your competitors...
and possibly let the fire spread to the next building which is owned by a PAYING COUSTOMER.
| Quote: | | This authority rides a fine line, expansive enough to apply and be enforceable to an entire nation, and restricted enough not to expand and be dedicated to the reinforcement of prior laws. |
It will expand. This is a phenomenon. Not because of prior laws, but because of new laws.
Not because of the elected legislators, but because of the bureaucracy which they control.
(it actualy controls them) The bureaucracy is large and difficult to reshape.
Those elected to power have incentive to interfere, but not to eliminate.
This is because to change a thing brings a good deal of approval.
To eliminate a thing or revers it completely alienates the constituency on mass.
This is why the right wing governments which now control Canada and the US
have only reshuffled the expenses with new justifications. IE:
debt rather than taxes, which is basically taxes deferred with interest.
People make economic arguments for this practice, but that's only sidestepping the issue.
If the government takes a measure, there is virtually nothing you can do about it.
You don't have an option to NOT be a participant, you basically have to cross your fingers
and hope that the next pack of lawmakers will fuck you less.
| Quote: | | Government for the people and by the people does not negate or shunt the individuals responsibility to be self-governing. I don't see an expansive limited standard with Anarchism. I see that with lazzi faire capitalist government. |
If the "governance" isn't lazzi faire, neither is the capitalism.
All any such government would need to do would be to amend the definition
of an entity within trade law, in order to effect trade. For example the extent to
which liability is limited with respect to share holders in a corporation.
Try and stop them. How are you going to do it without breaking the law?
By voting? That's basically asking for a different person to hold the gun to your head.
| Quote: | | Anarchists don't like calling that third party organization, provider of justice, protector of individual liberties, a government. Lazzi faire capitalists don't mind calling it government. |
If it's THE government it's necessarily the third party. There would be no legal option.
I guess that the majority of people who call themselves "anarchists"
might have this definitional problem, as they are usually Marxists,
who simply use euphemisms to describe enforcement of there economic theory.
It requires enforcement, as it's not echinomic.
Anarcho capitalists don't call that third party anything, as it's not exclusively A party.
It could be many parties, who act in the *third* capacity regionally, only when you need
them to. That's the key. Stop consolidating power by consensus.
The argument against anarcho capitalism is basically a reduction of the argument against
lazzi fair capitalism. Therefor I reject it. Like wise, the real world examples that appear to
support socialism are ironic. For example, in my own province the ferrie system which supports
Vancouver island from the mainland (and Vancouver island is LARGE) was run by the government for decades.
It was recently privatised, and since then the rates have skyrocketed, a super ferrie SANK,
there was a major collision, and the food is even worse- which I find amazing.
Is this because a profit motive is incompatible with an essential service?
NO, it's because handing a MONOPOLY over to a profit motive, is all profit and NO MOTIVE.
No wonder it's gotten worse. What were they thinking?
The only competitor was a high speed catamaran service. It's recently changed hands,
and is yet to reopen because the original company could not extend it's credit to pay for
repairs to an engine on it's ONE SHIP. (and what were THEY thinking?)
This is basically a cultural problem, not a political one. As long as people continue to
misidentify the real problem we are going to continue to delegate power to an institution
that by it's very nature DICTATES what we delegate, and how.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli
Last edited by cheapsuprise on Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7246
Local time: 10:48 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | Sal1981 wrote: | | lumpymunk wrote: | | The individual, although capable, if left to fend for himself indefinitely, would be over run in a gang-warfare environment. Anarchist structure is a gang-warfare environment. |
But these "gang-warfare environment" wouldn't be anarchistic, now would it? |
Did he read it?
| Quote: | | Anarchist structure is a gang-warfare environment. |
Immediately after the statement that provoked his question... |
He means that you related an interaction between autocracies to an anarchistic environment .
That's a non-sequitur, and a contradiction... and maybe even a category error.
I say this only tentatively as I'm no logician.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
