...

[pizzatorte]

how can you gaurantee the absence of coercion just because there's no government? i also didn't suggest an absence of order... but certain circumstances do arise...

Government by definition claims a priori authority over all conduct within a given geography. You don't opt in; you're subject to it by birth. Your only "choice" is to leave that geography for some other place on earth where hopefully the people who are calling the shots are nicer. If you "choose" to stay where you were born, you are bound by those laws regardless of your opinion or agreement. A hypothetical moral government could enforce only voluntary contracts, and otherwise coerce no one into compliance with any rules they did not agree to. But as they say, power corrupts, etc.

You can guarantee the absence of coercion in the absence of government through the concept of estoppel.

Estoppel is a well-known common-law principle that prevents or precludes someone from making a claim in a lawsuit that is inconsistent with his prior conduct, if some other person has changed his position to his detriment in reliance on the prior conduct (referred to as “detrimental reliance”). Estoppel thus denies a party the ability to assert a fact or right that he otherwise could. Estoppel is a widely-applicable legal principle that has countless manifestations.8 The Roman law and today’s civil law contain the similar doctrine venire contra factum proprium, or “no one can contradict his own act.” Under this principle, “no one is allowed to ignore or deny his own acts, or the consequences thereof, and claim a right in opposition to such acts or consequences.”

Estoppel is the reason why if someone physically attacks you, you are justified in using force to subdue them. They can't shout "ow, let go of my arms" because they initiated force, and are therefore precluded from objecting to the use of force against them.

So in a hypothetical place without a government, if someone initiates force against you without cause, you are free to respond with force to stop them. This doesn't mean you have to do it yourself, and indeed, many people are incapable or unwilling to use force effectively. But you may certainly designate an agent to use force on your behalf to subdue an attacker. Under narrow circumstances, this is true of the local police for each of us today. If you work in a high security facility of some sort, it is true of the security guards who are charged with the use of force by the company.

And there's nothing to prevent people from freely agreeing to pool resources for such services for the benefit of the local community, even to the extent that some may subsidize such services for those who cannot afford to pay. People have come to similar arrangements throughout history, although the voluntary aspect was usually lacking to varying degrees. The only difference would be that your wealth would not be taken from you at gunpoint and given to one group not of your choosing to provide this service, whether you agreed to it or not.

No reasonable person believes that if government vanished, things would magically be better (this is usually the point at which someone throws Somalia in your face and shouts aha). People are inherently evil, and in the absence of the threat of restraint, some of those people would seek to harm others for any number of reasons, or for no reason. Government does provide valuable services, and few would argue otherwise. The argument is whether or not a government monopoly on those services is the best or only way to achieve the same goals; and tangentially whether a government monopoly is morally justified, apart from any utilitarian questions.

[rrr70]

So, he bought a rifle while having four warants? Isn't there a question on a DROS form about a warants?

[trinydex]

So what did we do before we had a police state? Pop quiz - How many cops were the in 1825?

you haven't answered my question. this isn't 1825. less cogs were needed in 1825. less specialization was present in 1825. what i'm trying to allude to is how anarcho capitalism seeks to remedy the fundamental problem of technology and how technology requires organization and specialization. i feel that the appending of capitalism to the idea of anarchism means you're not willing to give up the laptop... whereas many other anarchists, primarily anarcho primitivists are willing to make such concessions.

The same way you do now, buy it at a store or have it shipped by a private shipping company.

so things operate more or less the same as they do now, just sans government. now i get to ask the question of how do you satisfy the "majority" without some sort of government in place. this is directly begging the question that the book common sense by thomas paine presents. even as a strict libertarian manifesto it STILL concedes that "common sense" leads to government.

This "blood in the streets" fantasy reminds me of what Brady says about CCWs. It just won't happen.

not sayin' blood in the streets. i'm sayin' how do you deal with a counter company taking a nerd away, either by incentive or by force?

Just like it does now...

see this confuses me. firstly how does work provide you protection benefits? secondly ask ourselves why we get our health "benefits" or insurance or otherwise through our employer right now? doesn't it have to do with government meddling? tax incentives or some crap? is that good? in a pure capitalistic society everything should be free market, there should be a stand alone company that gives your their health care benefits for a competitive walmart style price right?

Not really, you are just eliminating compulsory government. All other "constructions" of society would remain intact.

i have to ask again how to keep the majority appeased... it's always about concession, but i think the primary allure of anarcho capitalist society is one which no concessions have to be made. am i wrong about this view?

Not really, more like "success for the successful".

i now have to ask what is not success for the successful now...

Not rich, successful. Success being defined as profitable production. Eventually some people would choose to be lead by others, but that is because most people are sheep. Ultimately I would rather live in a feudalistic society where the most efficient rule than as a slave to a bureaucracy which steals what I earn with my labor and gives it to those who don't want to work.

feudal society IS where bureaucracy steals what you earn. we are still in a feudal society governemnt or not. cogs in a machine once again.

Monopolies should not exist in unregulated trade since there are few barriers for competition and there are substitutes for almost all goods. Most real monopolies are actually created by government intervention.

human factor you don't think? if i were a smart and enterprising person the FIRST thing i do with deregulation is run out all my competitors by force. of course this brings about the typical destabilizing factors brought on by this type of behavior, but it will always happen.

No reason why you can't quit... Maybe you could be more specific?

how do you quit when there's a monopoly? who else is there to work for? isn't that the idea of a monopoly? remember your rules have to wrok everywhere not just in urban areas of ca. what if the only thing in town is walmart... they can pay however much or however little they want in an anarchocapitalist society.

How did we address it in 1776?

is that the same way we should deal with it today? i admit, if we go back to 1776 living standards we can definitely deal with national security in the same way.

[trinydex]

Government by definition claims a priori authority over all conduct within a given geography. You don't opt in; you're subject to it by birth. Your only "choice" is to leave that geography for some other place on earth where hopefully the people who are calling the shots are nicer. If you "choose" to stay where you were born, you are bound by those laws regardless of your opinion or agreement. A hypothetical moral government could enforce only voluntary contracts, and otherwise coerce no one into compliance with any rules they did not agree to. But as they say, power corrupts, etc.

You can guarantee the absence of coercion in the absence of government through the concept of estoppel.

could i not argue that the same coercions or apriori authority exist in the same ways just on a smaller scale and with more multiplicity in an anarchist society of any sort. whenever you have more than one person... and then goes common sense (the book).

And there's nothing to prevent people from freely agreeing to pool resources for such services for the benefit of the local community, even to the extent that some may subsidize such services for those who cannot afford to pay. People have come to similar arrangements throughout history, although the voluntary aspect was usually lacking to varying degrees. The only difference would be that your wealth would not be taken from you at gunpoint and given to one group not of your choosing to provide this service, whether you agreed to it or not.

i believe by the bolded point this is already government. once you've made that concession you're no longer in the realm of anarchistic capitalism... are you? it would be nice if such a place could exist without the threats or rather without the abounding difficulties of human evil.

i think it's down right difficult in today's technological development. a day and age where many times real money making life doesn't start until after you're 20. a time when so much specialization is required. it's not wonder that "life" and the valuation of humanity has gotten so much higher/larger/greater. no one wants to go through all that and lose it all. well no one wants to lose, that's nothing new either. without the sophistication in our world today it'd be easier (imo) to take care of ourselves, our communities, each other, etc... with everything just simpler, lower standard maybe. but we've tasted that ***** of a fruit from technology and now we're slaves to that *****. ain't she a harsh mistress too :\

No reasonable person believes that if government vanished, things would magically be better (this is usually the point at which someone throws Somalia in your face and shouts aha). People are inherently evil, and in the absence of the threat of restraint, some of those people would seek to harm others for any number of reasons, or for no reason. Government does provide valuable services, and few would argue otherwise. The argument is whether or not a government monopoly on those services is the best or only way to achieve the same goals; and tangentially whether a government monopoly is morally justified, apart from any utilitarian questions.

i think this is incredibly sensible. we should never cease to question the .gov. we should never cease to question whether or not what we're doing is good, efficient, etc. i think we can do better. i don't think we should have a government that doesn't allow us to change for the better. i think a lot of problems arise when our public servants don't do the public serving. alas human nature rears its head again. we need to stay eternally vigilant. that includes a lotta *****in' on the internet

[Theseus]

Wow...And you would be a what?

Anarchy is useful and has its purpose. Take the expansion of America during our "Manifest Destiny". The migration was moving faster than the law could keep up with.

You lay claim to a plot of land and someone comes and takes it away...how do you solve it? A duel at high noon. . . Government need not be involved, this is a civil dispute anyway! The result determines the winner. It is not the "civilized" manner that we trust today, but it worked and provided a reasonable means to obtain order where a government could not.

And maybe you should refrain from using such colorful language in describing people just because of their belief. I could say the same thing about anyone who believes in religion...but I don't. . . not in a public forum anyway!

Uh oh, now ray's onto you, blackwater.

The nature of government has profound philosophical implications. Most self-described anarchists are just ******* punks who want to do violence to those around them. That low-IQ trash would latch on to something they don't understand is hardly unique. None of that has any bearing whatsoever on the philosophical view of the nature of governance.

[pizzatorte]

i believe by the bolded point this is already government. once you've made that concession you're no longer in the realm of anarchistic capitalism... are you? it would be nice if such a place could exist without the threats or rather without the abounding difficulties of human evil.

Widows and orphans incapable of producing wealth sufficient to sustain themselves have been with us for all of recorded history. As more and more people accumulated wealth sufficient to donate some amount to charitable efforts, the church assumed the role of caring for these people. Even in the strictest tithing environment, I don't think any churches have ever had the ability to withhold "contributions" from one's paycheck.

The absence of government obviously implies many things to many people. I'm obviously not in the camp which would seek individual tree stands for every free citizen to guard, shooting at whoever came within their natural domain. Although on one hand I believe people are inherently evil, on the other hand I believe they are (as a rule) rational actors, who will seek to maximize their own state. To me that means doing what I'm good at, and deriving value from it, and freely cooperating with others who agree to do the same.

i think it's down right difficult in today's technological development. a day and age where many times real money making life doesn't start until after you're 20. a time when so much specialization is required.

If you think about it, government regulation is responsible for much of the decline in wealth output from pre-college age people. I had a paper route when I was 10, and I've been working ever since. By the time I graduated from high school, I had five figure savings all from my own (cheap) labor. Today, that's basically impossible; even if a kid wants a job, he won't be allowed to have one. There's not a lot a 16-17 year old can do, and virtually nothing that someone under 16 would be permitted to do.

Wow...And you would be a what?
...

And maybe you should refrain from using such colorful language in describing people just because of their belief

Theseus, I think you misunderstood me. Hopefully the rest of my comments make my feelings more understandable. The behavior I was describing (and condemning) was the self-described "anarchists" we've all seen rioting around the world every time the WTO or G8 meet.

[NeoWeird]

Debating anarchy on a gun forum - because we don't look crazy enough to the rest of America.

[trinydex]

Widows and orphans incapable of producing wealth sufficient to sustain themselves have been with us for all of recorded history. As more and more people accumulated wealth sufficient to donate some amount to charitable efforts, the church assumed the role of caring for these people. Even in the strictest tithing environment, I don't think any churches have ever had the ability to withhold "contributions" from one's paycheck.

this is something that i'm willing to appreciate. something that i've heard before also.

The absence of government obviously implies many things to many people. I'm obviously not in the camp which would seek individual tree stands for every free citizen to guard, shooting at whoever came within their natural domain. Although on one hand I believe people are inherently evil, on the other hand I believe they are (as a rule) rational actors, who will seek to maximize their own state. To me that means doing what I'm good at, and deriving value from it, and freely cooperating with others who agree to do the same.

i'd have to ask do you feel that deriving value, is sustainable without advancement? i mean this is the principle qualm that anarcho primitivists have with technology. people like being good at stuff, they have to satisfy a need to derive value out of productivity of some sort... this always leads to "advancements," but these advancements erode our liberties...

If you think about it, government regulation is responsible for much of the decline in wealth output from pre-college age people. I had a paper route when I was 10, and I've been working ever since. By the time I graduated from high school, I had five figure savings all from my own (cheap) labor. Today, that's basically impossible; even if a kid wants a job, he won't be allowed to have one. There's not a lot a 16-17 year old can do, and virtually nothing that someone under 16 would be permitted to do.

i don't think this is true. i've worked since i was 15 and a half... it's not 10 but there's always things that can be done. i wouldn't say that such a factor is a big contributor to decline in youth wealth. i think a lot of cultural factors have more to do with that. consumerist culture....

[devildog999]

What a whiner. What does he expect with 4 frickin warrants and a few other reasons to search his car. It wouldn't matter what color he is.

[pizzatorte]

i'd have to ask do you feel that deriving value, is sustainable without advancement? i mean this is the principle qualm that anarcho primitivists have with technology. people like being good at stuff, they have to satisfy a need to derive value out of productivity of some sort... this always leads to "advancements," but these advancements erode our liberties...

I do something that I'm pretty good at, but it also pays pretty well. If someone paid more for something else that I could do well, even if I might think I'd enjoy it less, I might choose to give up some anticipated intangible satisfaction for more wealth.

I don't think that technological advancement erodes our liberties any more than guns cause crime. The only actors in the system are individuals, and accountability always ultimately the foot of the individual. Technological advances like miniature aerial drones and deep packet inspection are both cool and terrifying. But ultimately they raise the same question posed of the first caveman to sharpen a stick: "so what are you going to do with that?"

[trinydex]

i guess it depends on how idealistic you want to be about what liberty means. i think one example that is well cited is that of cars. when cars were first born, they were liberating. you could go further than before, you could go anywhere, there were essentially no rules.

contast that to nowadays. you practically need a car in certain places (this could or not be interpretted as an anarchistic liberty infringement). you can't walk wherever you want, you must go when green, stop when red, no walking in the middle of the street. you can't drive anywhere you want, debateably you can't even drive HOW you want (cell phone, watching a dvd etc).

it's all because of "common sense," the valuation of life, and of course the development of technology.

what about the idea that "of course" you want a preemptive cure to diabetes, no one would WANT diabetes if they could avoid it. well what about other types of genetic modification? you've already broken down the genetic modification door with a compelling argument against a previous incurable and very oppressive disease. now you're faced with the pandora's box, can't stuff it back in... and indeed, what you gonna do with that?

cell phones are another great example. before everyone lived without one, today it's a little harder to do so. but with the advent of cellphones, of course we want gps for all phones and 911 dial even if there's no service provider. well now that is used all the time to see where people are going etc.

what are you gonna use that for indeed, but the fact is we always convince ourselves it's "better" when we use it. cuz it's a cure, it's a protection, it's a convenience... after we leap or hop... it gets really muddy.

[MrSigmaDOT40]

If the AR was loaded, he iS A DUMB *** and needs to be put under the jail. This is from a person of color from a well known "Urban" area. I have to admit I have pretty much kept my mouth shut about OLL's and Ca Legal AR's around certain people I still know because some idiots are going to start getting them and get us F*cked up in these legl battles.

[odysseus]

Debating anarchy on a gun forum - because we don't look crazy enough to the rest of America.

LOL. Not only that, the content in the conversation has more issues than Oprah Winfrey at a Jenny Craig meeting.

...oh and let's talk about thread drift.

.

[Matt C]

you haven't answered my question. this isn't 1825. less cogs were needed in 1825. less specialization was present in 1825.

We don't need more government just because of specialization... This sounds a lot like the folks who say the 2A is outdated...

what i'm trying to allude to is how anarcho capitalism seeks to remedy the fundamental problem of technology and how technology requires organization and specialization.

Technology is a "problem"? How so? We can be organized without mandatory government.

i feel that the appending of capitalism to the idea of anarchism means you're not willing to give up the laptop... whereas many other anarchists, primarily anarcho primitivists are willing to make such concessions.

Well, frankly, those guys are nuts.

so things operate more or less the same as they do now, just sans government.

Exactly. Name one function of the government that cannot be fulfilled by the private sector.

now i get to ask the question of how do you satisfy the "majority" without some sort of government in place. this is directly begging the question that the book common sense by thomas paine presents. even as a strict libertarian manifesto it STILL concedes that "common sense" leads to government.

I don't know what you are talking about "satisfy the 'majority'", anarchism is about the individual. Government may be inevitable, tyranny may be inevitable as well. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots."


not sayin' blood in the streets. i'm sayin' how do you deal with a counter company taking a nerd away, either by incentive or by force?

If the other company uses incentive to convince an employee to leave they would be free to do so, as they are now. Why would anyone one to interfere with that, certainly an anarchist would not. If they you force you resist with force, again same as now. Just instead of paying the PD through the government, you pay directly. The government loses it's monopoly on force.

firstly how does work provide you protection benefits?

There is no security where you work? If not, you probably don't need any.

secondly ask ourselves why we get our health "benefits" or insurance or otherwise through our employer right now? doesn't it have to do with government meddling? tax incentives or some crap? is that good?

Employers provide health coverage primarily because it's a benefit to attract and retain good employees and because they want healthy employees. If you want health insurance it's up to you to negotiate for it. The government is not needed here either.

in a pure capitalistic society everything should be free market, there should be a stand alone company that gives your their health care benefits for a competitive walmart style price right?

Sure, or a company that does several things including insurance, or a company could provide it as an in house benefit, or a dozen other ways. In fact if you can think of it and make it profitable, then you could do it. Can you imagine the freedom?

i have to ask again how to keep the majority appeased... it's always about concession, but i think the primary allure of anarcho capitalist society is one which no concessions have to be made. am i wrong about this view?

Yes. Totally wrong. I'm not sure what this appease the majority BS is, but the majority does not need to be "appeased".


i now have to ask what is not success for the successful now...

The successful are those which are able to take the gains from their own productive labor and multiply them.

feudal society IS where bureaucracy steals what you earn. we are still in a feudal society governemnt or not. cogs in a machine once again.

I'll agree with that for the purposes of this argument. I can't promise to prevent tyranny from rising again, but if it does it will have to be fought again. The point is eliminating it for now, that's all we can do.

human factor you don't think? if i were a smart and enterprising person the FIRST thing i do with deregulation is run out all my competitors by force. of course this brings about the typical destabilizing factors brought on by this type of behavior, but it will always happen.

Maybe, but one party would not have the monopoly on force. Also, most would find that the overuse of force is simply bad for business.


how do you quit when there's a monopoly? who else is there to work for? isn't that the idea of a monopoly? remember your rules have to wrok everywhere not just in urban areas of ca. what if the only thing in town is walmart... they can pay however much or however little they want in an anarchocapitalist society.

And you could open a store to compete with them. If they are charging so much, it should be easy, if the prices are fair than there is no need to compete, do something else. If you work for them, work somewhere else.

is that the same way we should deal with it today? i admit, if we go back to 1776 living standards we can definitely deal with national security in the same way.

I think plenty of people here would join a militia, there would be at least enough equipment to train with, and in the face of a serious national threat I believe the population would contribute collectively to build or buy more with anyone putting a gun to their head.

[Matt C]

Debating anarchy on a gun forum - because we don't look crazy enough to the rest of America.

Ok, I'll bite. Why is anarchy such a crazy idea? Really it's just another word for economic and social freedom, but it is the victim of a very effective smear campaign. IF freedom is a crazy idea, well, I guess I'm one crazy dude.