Why I am an Anarchist - Page 7 - 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.
#14153785
republicuk wrote:Here's a scenario for anarchists.

Someone's playing music very loud night after night, you and the people living nearby are unable to sleep, it becomes so bad that your health noticeably declines due to sleep deprivation.

The music player protests his freedom to play his music as loud as he likes, whenever he likes and that any use of force to stop him is an act of oppression, you and the nearby people try to reason and compromise with him but have no success. What do you do now?


Depending on the severity, alert the homeowners association and/or call the police.
#14154156
Rothbardian wrote:Depending on the severity, alert the homeowners association and/or call the police.

Very sever.
I assume the homeowners association and police are in effect an authority which enforce rules?
either way what would you wish they do about it?
#14154162
republicuk - I invite you to watch this video for a look at the kind of system Rothbardian favours Machinery of Freedom. It is a market-anarchist or anarcho-capitalist type solution. Left-wing anarchists, what we might call 'traditional' or less kindly 'reactionary' anarchists, wouldn't like this kind of market based solution at all but probably couldn't come up with any kind of alternative system that wouldn't be indistinguishable from a state-like self-legitimised force monopoly.
#14154173
taxizen wrote:republicuk - I invite you to watch this video for a look at the kind of system Rothbardian favours Machinery of Freedom. It is a market-anarchist or anarcho-capitalist type solution. Left-wing anarchists, what we might call 'traditional' or less kindly 'reactionary' anarchists, wouldn't like this kind of market based solution at all but probably couldn't come up with any kind of alternative system that wouldn't be indistinguishable from a state-like self-legitimised force monopoly.

Do you see what I'm getting at though, whenever I play out scenarios in my mind from an anarchy point of view it always seem that there is an unavoidable progression towards law making, enforcement, hierarchies, authority etc. the lines get blurrier.

Thanks i'll check out that video but I'd still like an answer to my question.
By Nunt
#14154184
republicuk wrote:Do you see what I'm getting at though, whenever I play out scenarios in my mind from an anarchy point of view it always seem that there is an unavoidable progression towards law making, enforcement, hierarchies, authority etc. the lines get blurrier.

Of course there is. You must not confuse anarchy with the absence of laws, hierarcy or authority. The major difference between anarchy and government is that anarchy is governed by a limited set of rules by which everyone must abide, in contrast government rules through virtually unlimited abitrary rules which bind the people but not the governemnt.
#14154191
Nunt wrote:Of course there is. You must not confuse anarchy with the absence of laws, hierarcy or authority. The major difference between anarchy and government is that anarchy is governed by a limited set of rules by which everyone must abide, in contrast government rules through virtually unlimited abitrary rules which bind the people but not the governemnt.

How does it differ (if at all) from a direct democracy where government simply acts on the wishes of the people?
#14154203
Republicuk - Your question put more generally is 'how can disputes be resolved without government?' Using your scenario where the music player wants to listen to his music loudly and the neighbours wish he would use headphones or something so they don't have to hear it. First off before involving anyone else they can approach the music player and ask if he could turn it down. Well lets say he doesn't want to do that. The two parties are thus in a dispute which they cannot resolve by themselves peacefully. They both need a 3rd party to decide the matter but this 3rd party doesn't have to be government. It can be an independent arbitrator, that the parties both believe will produce a fair resolution to the dispute. Well let's say the music player is being difficult and says he won't agree to arbitration. If he doesn't agree to arbitration then he is effectively choosing to put himself outside of the protection of arbitration too. So the neighbours may well cut off his electricity or nail his front door shut or whatever else they like and the music player can't complain because he chose not to respect the rights of others or have disputes resolved peacefully through aribitration. So of course it is in the interests of all parties to agree to arbitration and to abide by the result.

You may say that this doesn't sound very different to a government monopoly on arbitration but actually it is in a number of ways. The first thing is all parties have a choice over who will arbitrate and who will enforce which means you are likely to get better outcomes at a lower cost, because if people can choose they will naturally choose better things that cost less. Where there is no choice, as with government, the provider of arbitration has no incentive to be efficient or useful because he loses nothing from being useless and gains nothing from being efficient.

The other thing is government law is hypocritical because it is composed of people who forbid other people to make law but if people are forbidden to make law then how is the people in government can do it? Divine right? And of course if the people in government are the only people who can make and enforce law they will easily make it so there is one law for them and another for those not in government so government can give itself a licence to murder and steal with impunity. They always do this, war is mass murder and tax is theft.

In anarchist law and enforcement everyone has the right to make law and enforce it, so no one is above the law and no one can give themselves a free pass to murder and steal.
#14154207
taxizen wrote:Republicuk - Your question put more generally is 'how can disputes be resolved without government?' Using your scenario where the music player wants to listen to his music loudly and the neighbours wish he would use headphones or something so they don't have to hear it. First off before involving anyone else they can approach the music player and ask if he could turn it down. Well lets say he doesn't want to do that. The two parties are thus in a dispute which they cannot resolve by themselves peacefully. They both need a 3rd party to decide the matter but this 3rd party doesn't have to be government. It can be an independent arbitrator, that the parties both believe will produce a fair resolution to the dispute. Well let's say the music player is being difficult and says he won't agree to arbitration. If he doesn't agree to arbitration then he is effectively choosing to put himself outside of the protection of arbitration too. So the neighbours may well cut off his electricity or nail his front door shut or whatever else they like and the music player can't complain because he chose not to respect the rights of others or have disputes resolved peacefully through aribitration. So of course it is in the interests of all parties to agree to arbitration and to abide by the result.

You may say that this doesn't sound very different to a government monopoly on arbitration but actually it is in a number of ways. The first thing is all parties have a choice over who will arbitrate and who will enforce which means you are likely to get better outcomes at a lower cost, because if people can choose they will naturally choose better things that cost less. Where there is no choice, as with government, the provider of arbitration has no incentive to be efficient or useful because he loses nothing from being useless and gains nothing from being efficient.

The other thing is government law is hypocritical because it is composed of people who forbid other people to make law but if people are forbidden to make law then how is the people in government can do it? Divine right? And of course if the people in government are the only people who can make and enforce law they will easily make it so there is one law for them and another for those not in government so government can give itself a licence to murder and steal with impunity. They always do this, war is mass murder and tax is theft.

In anarchist law and enforcement everyone has the right to make law and enforce it, so no one is above the law and no one can give themselves a free pass to murder and steal.

So its very much about keeping a proportional and minimal approach.
#14154858
republicuk wrote:Very sever.
I assume the homeowners association and police are in effect an authority which enforce rules?
either way what would you wish they do about it?


Obviously. Are you one of those ignorant people that thinks anarchy = no rules?

Again, depending on the details of the situation I'd expect them to either make it stop or provide recompense for the problem. But I personally wouldn't want to live somewhere that allowed that kind of behavior. Others may be okay with living with people like that, so their response would be different.
By Nunt
#14155069
republicuk wrote:How does it differ (if at all) from a direct democracy where government simply acts on the wishes of the people?

The difference is: In an anarchy, I alone can decide about what to do with my life and property. The only place for law is when my actions conflict with the property of others. Thus, I can play music really loud in my own house, but if the music goes farther then my property line and enters my neighbours property, then I am violating my neighbours property. So there is a place for the law to say when I can and cannot play music loudly.

In contrast, a democracy's laws are not limited to finding peaceful solutions when two people have a conflict with each other. A democracy's laws are not limited to anything. For example, a democracy can outlaw drugs. If someone consumes drugs in his own house, then he does not violate anyone else's property. In an anarchy, there would be no need for a law. In a democracy, the drugs may still be forbidden even if you harm noone through your actions.
#14155087
Rothbardian wrote:Obviously. Are you one of those ignorant people that thinks anarchy = no rules?


I'm ignorant in the sense that I lack knowledge about Anarchism, this is why I'm asking questions, to learn more about it.

Nunt wrote:The difference is: In an anarchy, I alone can decide about what to do with my life and property. The only place for law is when my actions conflict with the property of others. Thus, I can play music really loud in my own house, but if the music goes farther then my property line and enters my neighbours property, then I am violating my neighbours property. So there is a place for the law to say when I can and cannot play music loudly.

In contrast, a democracy's laws are not limited to finding peaceful solutions when two people have a conflict with each other. A democracy's laws are not limited to anything. For example, a democracy can outlaw drugs. If someone consumes drugs in his own house, then he does not violate anyone else's property. In an anarchy, there would be no need for a law. In a democracy, the drugs may still be forbidden even if you harm noone through your actions.


Why can't a libertarian direct democracy limit its law making and enforcement in the same way?
By Nunt
#14155121
republicuk wrote:Why can't a libertarian direct democracy limit its law making and enforcement in the same way?

Because they are contradictory. In a democracy, the majority gets to decide over the minority. Thus, if the majority decides that drugs should be outlawed, then drugs will be outlawed. In contrast, in an anarchy even if the entire population wants to outlaw drugs, only one person needs to say: "im still gonna use drugs and it will not be outlawed for me to do so".

I guess in theory you could restrict the democracy's jurisdiction to only enforcing anarchic laws. But that would be quite useless. Whats the point of a democracy if you are not going to allow it to decide on anything?
User avatar
By Eran
#14155204
Here is another way of thinking about it.

The US Constitution explicitly places certain aspects of our lives outside the scope of legitimate government action. Religious practice is the best known of those aspects.

Even if the majority decided that certain forms of worship should be mandated (or prohibited), the form of governance of the United States precludes government from acting on that majority view.

Libertarians want to expand the range of things people can do without interference, even if that interference is backed by a majority of citizens.

The most radical of libertarians (like me) want to eliminate the scope for legitimate government action altogether.

But just as giving authority over questions of religion to a majority is very different from allowing individual freedom in that regard, giving the majority authority over questions of property is very different from allowing individual freedom.
#14155374
Nunt wrote:Because they are contradictory. In a democracy, the majority gets to decide over the minority. Thus, if the majority decides that drugs should be outlawed, then drugs will be outlawed. In contrast, in an anarchy even if the entire population wants to outlaw drugs, only one person needs to say: "im still gonna use drugs and it will not be outlawed for me to do so".

I guess in theory you could restrict the democracy's jurisdiction to only enforcing anarchic laws. But that would be quite useless. Whats the point of a democracy if you are not going to allow it to decide on anything?

I've seen no definition of democracy that says majorities are to impose rule over minorities, they generally do but they certainly don't have to.
#14155800
republicuk wrote:I've seen no definition of democracy that says majorities are to impose rule over minorities, they generally do but they certainly don't have to.


And if we implemented another theocratic monarchy the king wouldn't necessarily have to kill pagans and blasphemers. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement a system that says it can be done. In fact if you've got a problem with such a thing, there's no reason to advocate the system at all.

Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong with voting as long as everyone involved joined voluntarily. If you think the best way to run society is direct democracy then that's fine. You and people of like mind are more than welcome to live as you see fit as far as we anarchists are concerned. All that we ask is that you extend us the same courtesy to choose the systems we prefer as well.
User avatar
By Eran
#14155936
repulibcuk wrote:I've seen no definition of democracy that says majorities are to impose rule over minorities, they generally do but they certainly don't have to.

Democracy, by definition, is a form of government in which the leadership is popularly-elected.

Government, by definition, imposes its rules on its citizens.

Thus in a democracy, the majorities (indirectly, through their elected officials) impose their rules over all citizens, including any opposing minority.
#14155949
eran - republic used the term direct democracy rather than representative democracy which is what you have described. Either way Rothbardian nails it; there is no problem with anykind of collective decision process providing the participants are not forced into the bargain. If some people get together and voluntarily decide that they will elect one of their number to be the Great Dictator then that is fine providing they don't try to impose their rules on those that never consented to this arrangement.
By Nunt
#14155963
taxizen wrote:Either way Rothbardian nails it; there is no problem with anykind of collective decision process providing the participants are not forced into the bargain.
True, but I would find it confusing to describe such a system as a democracy. In such a system, a minority would be free to ignore the majority. The main idea behind a democracy is that the decisions made by the majority are binding for everyone.
#14156003
Eran wrote:Democracy, by definition, is a form of government in which the leadership is popularly-elected.

Government, by definition, imposes its rules on its citizens.

Thus in a democracy, the majorities (indirectly, through their elected officials) impose their rules over all citizens, including any opposing minority.

I can't find any such definition, it is typically true especially representative democracy, but it can work just as rothbardian, nunt and taxizen have described.
User avatar
By Eran
#14156022
A democracy, by definition, is a government (either directly or indirectly) by the majority.

The point is, it is still government, and thus coercive by definition.

Any organisation that doesn't force people in a given geographical area to use their services isn't a government. To be a government, an organization has to force people in a given geographical area to use its services (typically, whichever services it determines and at whatever cost).

Thus every government, including, in particular, any democratic government (whether direct or representative) involves forcing some people against their will.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]