Why I am an Anarchist - Page 5 - 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.
User avatar
By Red Barn
#14126280
Given immigration restrictions, there is very little choice even in the immoral and unjust option of "voting with your feet".

Bullshit.

Immigration restrictions are not the same as emigration restrictions. Obviously.

Your freedom to leave the United States doesn't give you an automatic right to claim citizenship in Denmark, any more than the Indonesian teen's freedom to leave Nike grants her the right to a high-paying job on Wall Street.

Isn't that so?
User avatar
By ingliz
#14126607
all use of force is governed, ultimately, by the Non Aggression Principle. Private people aren't at liberty to ignore the NAP.

OK, is this permissable:

I am a good muslim.

My peaceful project is to raise a family as my father raised his.

I contract to be governed by strict sharia law.

My daughter disrupts this peaceful project. She refuses to wear the veil, drinks alchocol, and indulges in premarital sex with a string of boyfriends. I arrange for her to be married to a nice traditional boy, she spits in my face, and runs off to marry her latest waste of space an infidel.

The law states that an unmarried women's role is to be subject to her father.

She has broken the law.

I kill her.
Last edited by ingliz on 11 Dec 2012 15:40, edited 1 time in total.
By Decky
#14126738
Did she accept sharia?


Even is she did it would have only been because she was brainwashed from birth. Does that count as choosing? Of course not, there is coercion even if she can't see it.
By mikema63
#14126782
I old have preferred you let him say yes (if he would have) easier argument. :p

No I don't think he should be able to kill her, only disown her.
#14126869
ingliz wrote:OK, is this permissable:

I am a good muslim.

My peaceful project is to raise a family as my father raised his. I contract to be governed by strict sharia law.

My daughter disrupts this peaceful project.

She refuses to wear the veil, drinks alchocol, and indulges in premarital sex with a string of boyfriends. I arrange for her to be married to a nice traditional boy, she spits in my face, and runs off to marry her latest waste of space an infidel.

The law states that an unmarried women's role is to be subject to her father.

She has broken the law.

I kill her.


Where did she sign on to Sharia law? You see, of course, how upholding the non aggression principle means places that do this sort of thing dissolve very quickly. Applied equally to women and children? The hell you say!

In parts of India, it's common practice for men who are dissatisfied with their wives to burn them alive. If you think a government solves this sort of behavior, all I have to do is ask what your opinion of the situation would be if wife burning was a government mandate.

Given the history of governments, that's not even remotely far fetched.

The truth is that without a government, you and your daughter killing swine you call a community would be completely cut off from the rest of society. The rest of us would simply cut you off. You can't use our roads. You can't enter our communities. You cannot use our health care or trade with us. I hope you are self sustaining because we'll have nothing to do with you. And when your children escape your hell hole we will take them in, and what will you have left?

Nunt wrote:
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.


This is why statists live in language, in abstract concepts, and have such difficulty discussing reality absent perception. It's the problem Socrates had dealing with sophists.

Here in reality, a government is not defined by the services it provides, because non-government agencies have provided every single service the government provides today. Slave owners used to build roads, that doesn't mean they were governments. The only defining characteristic of a government is it's self proclaimed monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Administrator note: I know you have been advised already that back-to-back posting is discouraged on PoFo. I would be grateful if you could observe this as it would reduce the burden on moderators and administrators who, as in this case, then have to edit your posts retrospectively. Thank you.
Last edited by Cartertonian on 11 Dec 2012 07:50, edited 2 times in total. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged
User avatar
By ingliz
#14126956
you and your daughter killing swine you call a community would be completely ....

We go to war.

Is this what passes for law and order under NAP?

wife burning was a government mandate.

Suttee was banned* under the British Raj.

* Banned in 1829, and the ban upheld after legal challenge in 1832.
User avatar
By Eran
#14127188
ingliz wrote:I am a good muslim.

My peaceful project is to raise a family as my father raised his. I contract to be governed by strict sharia law.

My daughter disrupts this peaceful project.

She refuses to wear the veil, drinks alchocol, and indulges in premarital sex with a string of boyfriends. I arrange for her to be married to a nice traditional boy, she spits in my face, and runs off to marry her latest waste of space an infidel.

The law states that an unmarried women's role is to be subject to her father.

She has broken the law.

I kill her.

Here is your contradiction. "Peaceful" isn't a subjective assessment. Peaceful means specifically "not violating the NAP", part of which is the prohibition against the initiation of force against other people.

IF the project of raising a family as your father did involves the initiation of force against others (such as your daughter), the project isn't "peaceful" for the purpose of NAP, and thus isn't defensible. Others may legitimately use force against you (e.g. in defence of your daughter, or in retaliation of your killing her).
User avatar
By ingliz
#14127215
initiation of force

I am not initiating force; my daughter initiated force against God

My "peaceful project" is God's work and I am acting on behalf of God by using retaliatory force against a daughter who has sinned.


:)
By mikema63
#14127236
Even in the context of religion sin isn't considered as something that hurts god, only you. :?:

Besides NAP is generally a secular conception and isn't applicable to bearded men in the sky.
User avatar
By Eran
#14127243
Again ingliz, the NAP is formulated with some precision.

A project is only "peaceful" if it fails to violate the NAP.

The NAP prohibits initiation of force against other people (or their peaceful projects). It says nothing about violation of God's will. In particular, it explicitly excludes a violation of God's will as a legitimate reason for using force.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14127352
In particular, it explicitly excludes a violation of God's will as a legitimate reason for using force.

Where?
Last edited by ingliz on 12 Dec 2012 12:27, edited 1 time in total.
#14127720
ingliz wrote:I am not initiating force; my daughter initiated force against God

My "peaceful project" is God's work and I am acting on behalf of God by using retaliatory force against a daughter who has sinned.


:)


The non aggression principle is a principle applied to human interaction. It has nothing to do with any perceived offense against your imaginary friend.

ingliz wrote:We go to war.

Is this what passes for law and order under NAP?


I doubt you're going to attack me, my defense firm has nuclear weapons.

Law in the statist sense obviously wouldn't exist. There would be polycentric laws, created by people resolving disputes through mutually agree arbitrators. Arbitrators have incentives to find the best solutions for both parties, forcing them to be as fair as possible.

Suttee was banned* under the British Raj.

* Banned in 1829, and the ban upheld after legal challenge in 1832.


I didn't say wife burning was a government mandate, I proposed a hypothetical in which it was. Anything a government can outlaw, it can also mandate.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14127803
Others may legitimately use force against you (e.g. in defence of your daughter, or in retaliation of your killing her).

'Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2(4)

"Retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring."

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.



:)
User avatar
By Eran
#14127968
The Non Aggression Principle may well be in contradiction to Islamic Law.

Nowhere have I argued that the NAP is the only possible moral code that people may adopt. Clearly, many people (sadly, in fact, far too many) adopted moral codes that contradict the NAP.

But once society does adopt the NAP as its basis for the legitimate use of force, appeals to Islamic (or any other, divine or otherwise) law which contradicts the NAP cannot serve as a legitimate excuse for acts of aggression.
#14127988
When you subtract out all the activities of government that do not require government, can be done and even be done better by civil organisations

Isn't that essentially what government is? A civil organization?
#14127991
Truepolitics - If by civil organisations you are willing to include organised crime syndicates then yes government is a kind civil organisation. Myself I think it is more sensible to distinguish between civil and criminal organisations.
User avatar
By Eran
#14128017
In other words, civil organisations are organisations based on voluntary cooperation, in clear distinction from governments which are based on coercion (i.e. force).
By Nunt
#14128088
Red Barn wrote:Immigration restrictions are not the same as emigration restrictions. Obviously.


Immigration and emigration are symmetric concepts. One nation's immigrant is another's emigrant. In order for people to be able to migrate two conditions need to hold: 1) they need to be able to leave their country, 2) they need to be able to enter another country. I mean whats the point if you are free to leave your country, but not free to enter another country.

I'm very surprised that this isn't obvious to you.
User avatar
By Red Barn
#14128165
What does "symmetry" have do with it?

I'm simply comparing the freedom to leave a country with the freedom to leave a job. Neither implies that simply leaving entitles you to a berth somewhere else.

I stress this point because Eran's claim that "the option of voting with your feet" is "unjust and immoral" in this instance is in perfect contradiction to his views on justice and morality in the private sector.

Thus, if a worker's freedom to leave a job is enough, all by itself, to prove that his remaining in that job was a free choice in the first place, then it only stands to reason that the same principle would apply to any person who remains in a country that allows citizens to leave under exactly the same terms.

See? :)
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Why are you obsessed with other people engaging in[…]

EU-BREXIT

The illib undems just had guy vernosestud over sa[…]

You can believe in religion and have socialist va[…]

Schizophrenia

Well the point of mental treatment is to adjust b[…]