Why I am an Anarchist - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Someone5
#14123128
Nunt wrote:Has it occured to you that the "either ... or" statement that you made is not a contrast. Someone can support the things that are currently being done by the state, but that does not mean that someone automatically supports the state. I can support the enforcement of property rights, without supporting that this is funded through taxation rather than voluntary contributions. I can support a court system without supporting that this court system is a legalized monopoly.


Which is irrelevant. Whomever is enforcing the rights is a government; that these governments might not have a monopoly and might be able to compete is not relevant to the discussion about whether you support governments or not. Calling a government a "rights management agency" does not actually change the nature of the thing. It does not change the fundamental function of it, which is to be a control on legitimate behavior.

Do you see the arguement? In my country government has provided for: schools, hospitals, public transport, gas, electricity, water, air travel, mail,... I believe that its good that someone should provide these goods AND at the same time believe that these goods ought not be provided using taxation and a legalized monopoly.


Which has nothing to do with my statement. At all.
By Nunt
#14123166
Someone5 wrote:Which is irrelevant. Whomever is enforcing the rights is a government; that these governments might not have a monopoly and might be able to compete is not relevant to the discussion about whether you support governments or not. Calling a government a "rights management agency" does not actually change the nature of the thing. It does not change the fundamental function of it, which is to be a control on legitimate behavior.

So if we were to install organizations that:
1) dont not have a legalized monopoly on violence but allows other organizations to perform similar functions
2) that are not funded by taxes but through volunteary contributions,

Then you would say this is government and such a society is very possible because it has a government?

I'll accept your definition of a government for the sake of this discussion and I will rephrase my point of view using that definition:

I (and many anarchists and ancaps with me) am in favor of a government that is not a legalized monopoly and that is not funded through taxation.

The above statement is something that makes sense to you? Imo by defining a government as any rights management agency, you really are cutting the legs from under governments. Anarchists are not against rights managements agencies. I believe them to be absolute necessary.
By Someone5
#14123640
Nunt wrote:So if we were to install organizations that:
1) dont not have a legalized monopoly on violence but allows other organizations to perform similar functions
2) that are not funded by taxes but through volunteary contributions,

Then you would say this is government and such a society is very possible because it has a government?


If an organization sets up controls on the legitimate behavior of members of society, it is a government. However it funds itself, however it enforces its will, it is a government. Taxes are not an essential function of government--they could be funded by donations. Military force is not an essential function of government--it might not need such force. What is the basic premise of government is that it serves to provide a common set of rules for the behavior of its subjects. The rights management agencies that an-caps propose is still a government; even if it is a competitive government.

I (and many anarchists and ancaps with me) am in favor of a government that is not a legalized monopoly and that is not funded through taxation.


And therefore you are a statist simply insisting that the government does what you want and does not do what you dislike. That your likes are more restrictive and dislikes more broad does not change that you are a statist.

Anarchists are not against rights managements agencies. I believe them to be absolute necessary.


They are unnecessary, and unwelcome.
#14123680
someone5 - In an anarchy everyone is a rights management agency, but just like everyone could grow their own food, could build their own house, etc but instead find it more useful to employ a specialist to perform that task on their behalf, people will choose to do so for rights management and security. Nothing wrong with that if it is by choice.
#14123784
Someone5 wrote:
A) An anarchy is not even remotely the same thing as a free market; precisely for the reasons I will talk about in point C. Don't try to conflate the two.
B) You are making an inconsistent argument; either you support the state and the things that states do, like grant property rights, administer property claims, put in place a court system and a body of law to follow... or you don't support the state, in which case you don't support any of those things. There can be no consistent middle ground there. In this specific case, you either have a situation where private corporations will give aggrieved victims of pollution the runaround in the courts for years--or you have a situation where there are no courts to seek redress within. A "statist" society will have those courts, a fully private society will not. In either case, the person is going to get screwed, it's just a question of how they get screwed. There is exactly one way to resolve that problem in a way that is beneficial for the victim--eliminate the concentrations of private power that allow a private company such disproportionate power within a public court system.
C) Yes, if you were consistent and honest in your desire to have only a private society, you would have no courts. I will grant you that libertarians do want courts--but that is because they are not actually anarchists. They support the government--in the form of property rights, courts, property protection, etc--they just don't like to admit it. Libertarians--and I include "anarcho-capitalists" in that boat--are hypocrites. I will not, however, grant you that an anarchy will necessarily have courts. It might or it might not, as a community sees fit. Some communities might want them, others might not, and an anarchist society would allow for both.


A) No, there is no difference at all. A free market means all interactions are voluntary. Nothing a government does is ever voluntary.
B) Actually I can support things the government does without supporting a government. Sort of like even though some of the roads that exist today were originally built by slaves, I can support the building of roads without supporting slavery. See how that works? As hard as this is for you to wrap your head around, it's not rocket science.
C) Blatant lie. Any courts in a free society would exist voluntarily.

The point, again, is that all interactions be voluntary. It's not that hard to understand, though for some people it is. We don't really care what you call it. Free market, anarchy, supercalfragalisticexpialadocous, whatever. So long as it's voluntary. That's the point. I can't find any smaller words, and I am at a loss as to why that is so difficult to grasp.

:?:

I actually used a private, voluntary court last week. A business I frequent charged me twice for a transaction. So I called the credit card company to dispute it. And they ruled in my favor, reversing the charge. I honestly don't understand how people like you can believe this sort of nonsense unless you're living as a hermit.
By Nunt
#14123882
Rothbardian wrote:I actually used a private, voluntary court last week. A business I frequent charged me twice for a transaction. So I called the credit card company to dispute it. And they ruled in my favor, reversing the charge. I honestly don't understand how people like you can believe this sort of nonsense unless you're living as a hermit.

Seems like Someone5 is defining a government as "any arbitration organization".

Guess I am just a statist who wants to eliminate all taxes and remove every legalized monopoly.
#14125204
Nunt wrote:Seems like Someone5 is defining a government as "any arbitration organization".

Guess I am just a statist who wants to eliminate all taxes and remove every legalized monopoly.


Yeah a lot of people do that. I heard a debate between Peter Schiff and an anarchist and when trying to justify the government in the context of the non aggression principle, his concept of a libertarian government is basically an organization that only provides services to people who are willing to voluntarily participate with it over its competitors. Basically a government that's not a government at all, just another business.

I forget sometimes that a lot of people define a government by the services it provides rather than its monopoly on violence.
By Someone5
#14125676
Rothbardian wrote:A) No, there is no difference at all. A free market means all interactions are voluntary. Nothing a government does is ever voluntary.


A free market is only "voluntary" if you ignore context. Human beings use cooperative economics as a survival strategy--in a free market, the means of production by which that economic activity occurs is privately controlled. That means that the owners of the means of production have an implicit ability to coerce those who do not simply by threatening to deny those workers access to the means of production to which a worker requires access in order to provide for himself. Or, in other words, the owners of the means of production can threaten to starve a person merely by denying that person access to the means of production.

The gatekeepers in a completely propertarian environment will always have coercive power over workers. This is something people forget when they talk about the role of commons or public "property".

B) Actually I can support things the government does without supporting a government. Sort of like even though some of the roads that exist today were originally built by slaves, I can support the building of roads without supporting slavery. See how that works?


You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy (confusing the government's products for its activities). If you support the government building roads, you support the government. If you were consistent, and you want to profess a lack of support for governments, you ought to oppose governments building roads. By the same token, if you were consistent, you would oppose a universal public court system by which the victims of corporate aggression can seek redress. You cannot consistently argue that such a court ought to exist while insisting that the institutions which make it possible ought not to exist.

C) Blatant lie. Any courts in a free society would exist voluntarily.


Because of course a giant multinational corporation would not insist that you use only its favored arbitration service. You know what they already require you to do. Voluntary arbitration exists only because there is a universal backup; if a person fails to adhere to a binding arbitration, you can force compliance through the public courts. That implied threat of forced compliance is what drives individuals and organizations into arbitration and it's what lets people trust that the arbitration will hold. In a fully private system, the more powerful party can tell the weaker party to go fuck themselves and get away with it without any real consequence.

The point, again, is that all interactions be voluntary. It's not that hard to understand,


Kind of like the rocket equation; it's easy to understand, but not at all easy to make it work in practice. You can understand everything there is to know about the rocket equation, but you'll still have to blow some rockets up on the launch pad before you can figure out how to use it. Seeing as you favor rocket science metaphors, it seems apt.

We don't really care what you call it. Free market, anarchy, supercalfragalisticexpialadocous, whatever. So long as it's voluntary. That's the point. I can't find any smaller words, and I am at a loss as to why that is so difficult to grasp.


The part that's difficult to grasp is how you think that would actually work. The flaws in your position are wide enough to drive a bus through; blatantly obvious logical failures. They're littered through the entirety of anarcho-capitalist thought, without any recognition by anarcho-capitalists that they even exist. Anarcho-capitalists have absolutely no adequate answer to the problem of excessively powerful private organizations imposing their will by force. No answer to that which would actually work, other than weak protests that maybe the people wouldn't stand for it.

Anarcho-capitalism would work only if everyone was honorable and everyone was an anarcho-capitalist. Here in real life people aren't universally honorable, and most people think anarcho-capitalism is crazy.

I actually used a private, voluntary court last week. A business I frequent charged me twice for a transaction. So I called the credit card company to dispute it.


You're only able to dispute the charge because the government forces the credit card company to allow you to dispute the charge! Your right to dispute a charge is outlined in the FCBA, a federal law backed up by the force of government. You're literally talking about a "private, voluntary court" that only exists because the federal government forces credit card companies to allow customers to dispute fraudulent charges.

I honestly don't understand how people like you can believe this sort of nonsense unless you're living as a hermit.


You an-caps must live life with some serious blinders on.
By Someone5
#14125677
Nunt wrote:Seems like Someone5 is defining a government as "any arbitration organization".


Any arbitrary organization which attempts to enforce a common set of behavioral norms among either its membership or those whom it controls. And yes, quite a lot of organizations would qualify as governments by that definition; albeit governments with very limited real power.

Guess I am just a statist who wants to eliminate all taxes and remove every legalized monopoly.


Sure.
By Nunt
#14125946
Someone5 wrote:Sure.


Then we are in agreement. I would like to point out that now you can no longer say that "an anarchy or ancap society cannot exist because it doesn't have a governmet". Because ancaps don't really want to eliminate any arbitration organization, rather they want to remove taxes and legalized monopoly. But according to you they would still have a government.

I would like to urge your to keep this in mind when discussing governments with anarchists. They will often use a different definition of government and without clarification of your definition, you will be misunderstood and will not be able to understand.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14125968
legalized monopoly.

The US government hires Blackwater to fight their wars for them.

The UK government hires G4S to catch criminals.

Ancaps hire private defence agencies to do both.

What's the difference?
By Nunt
#14125974
ingliz wrote:The US government hires Blackwater to fight their wars for them.

The UK government hires G4S to catch criminals.

Ancaps hire private defence agencies to do both.

What's the difference?


The difference is huge. The ancaps hiring private defence agencies and the agencies themselves would be bound by the same rules as everyone else. So when a government bombs a building filled with innocents, this is just a mistake and collateral damage. In an ancap society, when a defence organization does the same thing, everyone involved is guilty with mass murder.

They are not the same because in both cases, someone hires a third party organization. They are different because the person who hires is a private person in an ancap society, and a legalized monopoly in the current society. Just because governments decide to outsource some activities, does not mean they no longer hold the legalized monopoly.
#14125981
Yes it is a huge difference, government externalises both liability and cost to the taxpayer whether they use their own regulars or mercenaries. In an anarchist scenario (an-cap or other anarchist) security agencies have to internalise their liabilities and costs or pass them on to their customers but their customers can choose which security agencies they use. If a security agency can lose its customers then if they get too expensive or disreputable then they have a powerful incentive to be both efficient and peaceful in order to keep costs down and remain competitive so they can stay in business.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14126010
government externalises both liability and cost to the taxpayer

security agencies... pass them on to their customers

What's the difference?

customers can choose which security agencies they use.

As can "citizens" if they choose to emigrate.

they have a powerful incentive to be both efficient and peaceful in order to keep costs down and remain competitive so they can stay in business.

As has government.

So, what is the difference?
#14126043
Ingliz - What would you think of a society where there was only one car insurance company and if you didn't want to use their services you had to emigrate? :knife: It is no different with security.
By Nunt
#14126045
ingliz wrote:As can "citizens" if they choose to emigrate.

Can you see the difference between changing your subscription of your provider and emigrating to another country. Many countries have strict immigration policies so saying people can just emigrate is plainly wrong. You cannot vote with your feet. People who try it anyway are being locked up by immigration services and sent back to where they came from. Furthermore, even if people have limited abilities to emigrate, the cost of that is clearly very high. You need to leave everything behind. In contrast, changing subscriptions can be done by merely filling in an internet form. So yeah, there is a difference.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14126082
Can you see the difference between changing your subscription of your provider and emigrating to another country

I can, but it would not be that easy.

Presumably to go with your private government you would have private law?
User avatar
By Eran
#14126179
It depends on what you mean by "private law".

In one sense, we already have private law. Property owners are at liberty to set rules upon which the use of their property is conditioned (e.g. no outside foods in a movie theatre). In that sense, they get to set the "law" within their property.

In another sense, all use of force is governed, ultimately, by the Non Aggression Principle. Private people aren't at liberty to ignore the NAP.

In a third sense, law is set by mutual agreement, e.g. with respect to which arbitration firm (or legal code) would be used to resolve contractual conflicts. In that sense, private law already exist, in that many contracts stipulate terms of arbitration (or national law) to be used to resolve differences.
User avatar
By Red Barn
#14126181
Nunt wrote:Can you see the difference between changing your subscription of your provider and emigrating to another country. Many countries have strict immigration policies so saying people can just emigrate is plainly wrong. You cannot vote with your feet. People who try it anyway are being locked up by immigration services and sent back to where they came from. Furthermore, even if people have limited abilities to emigrate, the cost of that is clearly very high. You need to leave everything behind. In contrast, changing subscriptions can be done by merely filling in an internet form. So yeah, there is a difference.

But unless you really are forcibly prevented from leaving - which is hardly the norm - it's still a choice. Just as an unemployed Indonesian teenager has the choice of working for Nike for 2 bucks a day, or becoming a prostitute, or starving to death.

If the latter is a choice, so is the former. :)
User avatar
By Eran
#14126217
Given immigration restrictions, there is very little choice even in the immoral and unjust option of "voting with your feet".

In fact, millions of people would love nothing more than to have that choice, and armies of border patrols and immigration officials have been recruited to use force to foil that choice.

The Indonesian teenagers indeed would have many more choices if it wasn't for his oppressive government. Without that oppressive government, he would be in the position of a Jewish teenager in 1905 America - poor, but with a distinct upward-mobility options open to them.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
EU-BREXIT

@snapdragon mcdonnel is now pushing for full on […]

Atheism is Evil

@SSDR As mentioned before, there is no fixed h[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Deficit $22 Trillion and rising. I rest my case.

Cis heterosexual males have suffered massive disc[…]