Capitalism vs. Statism

[tinoater]

If I can wade into this discussion, it seems like you are arguing different scenarios of anarchy. If you took a city and took away government you would have gang warfare, fighting over necessary (and unnecessary) resources as people tried to cling to the previous way of life. However if you took a rural area with an adequate or abundant amount of food then things would be different, some would probably try to aquire excess food and possessions by force, but most would not as after all it's not in the soldiers interest to fight.

[BTGBullseye]

If I can wade into this discussion, it seems like you are arguing different scenarios of anarchy. If you took a city and took away government you would have gang warfare, fighting over necessary (and unnecessary) resources as people tried to cling to the previous way of life. However if you took a rural area with an adequate or abundant amount of food then things would be different, some would probably try to aquire excess food and possessions by force, but most would not as after all it's not in the soldiers interest to fight.

That is most likely, true.

[Michael Archer]

As you say, people don't operate outside of reason, but reason differs between different people.

 

As for who makes the laws in an anarchy, the people do. It's called social order.

 

How would they define those, majority vote? Would there be a constitution?

 

The theory of "competing governments/defense agencies" is absurd, no matter how you put it. Steve goes to Government A (Steve is a valued customer of Government A) and claims that Bob stole his wallet. Government A sends there police to Bob's door and says they're going to arrest him and take him down to their police station where he'll await trial. Bob responds that he's a customer of Government B and does not recognize the authority of Government A. What would happen? Here's a hint: whoever can use the most force wins. Remember that a government is an organization which provides a service; that service is to use force against men. I'll let you decide what a competition for force would lead to.

 

Anyway, I think anarchists try to tell people that their system is a system of "freedom"--but to use force to get someone to do something they don't want to do in the name of "freedom" is absurd.

 

I think the best way to deal with an anarchist like you is to say, "If you don't want to delegate your right to self-defense to a government, that's fine; that's your right. But if you try to initiate force on me, you can be sure my government will respond and punish you accordingly."

[BTGBullseye]

As you say, people don't operate outside of reason, but reason differs between different people.

 

As for who makes the laws in an anarchy, the people do. It's called social order.

 

How would they define those, majority vote? Would there be a constitution?

 

The theory of "competing governments/defense agencies" is absurd, no matter how you put it. Steve goes to Government A (Steve is a valued customer of Government A) and claims that Bob stole his wallet. Government A sends there police to Bob's door and says they're going to arrest him and take him down to their police station where he'll await trial. Bob responds that he's a customer of Government B and does not recognize the authority of Government A. What would happen? Here's a hint: whoever can use the most force wins. Remember that a government is an organization which provides a service; that service is to use force against men. I'll let you decide what a competition for force would lead to.

 

Anyway, I think anarchists try to tell people that their system is a system of "freedom"--but to use force to get someone to do something they don't want to do in the name of "freedom" is absurd.

 

I think the best way to deal with an anarchist like you is to say, "If you don't want to delegate your right to self-defense to a government, that's fine; that's your right. But if you try to initiate force on me, you can be sure my government will respond and punish you accordingly."

You keep saying it's Anarchy, but I've never once said anything except RATIONAL ANARCHY. You obviously STILL haven't read up on it.

 

I said social order, not force. No laws except the unspoken/unwritten ones that everyone knows about. (do unto others, etc.) You have a disagreement, you take the issue to the community. Whoever the community sides with, wins. You don't like it, you are perfectly free to leave, or not bother arguing again. If you murder someone, expect the entire community to come gunning for you. You steal something from someone, expect most of your stuff to be dispersed throughout the community by the time you get home. The law keeps itself though the community, not through a police force.

[Michael Archer]

You keep saying it's Anarchy, but I've never once said anything except RATIONAL ANARCHY.

 

Which I've said many times, is an absurd contradiction in terms.

 

No laws except the unspoken/unwritten ones that everyone knows about.

 

Unspoken/unwritten ones means subjective, undefinable, rules that are based off of whims.

 

You have a disagreement, you take the issue to the community. Whoever the community sides with, wins.

 

There is no such thing as a "community"; when you say "community", you mean "a group of individuals". So in essence, you're saying that a group votes (a group doesn't think, so when a group 'decides' something, this is a majority vote) The community has no rules to follow; the community ARE the rules--this means anything.

 

This is mob rule, no matter how you put it.

 

You don't like it, you are perfectly free to leave, or not bother arguing again.

 

This is Argument from Dismissal fallacy. Just because I'm free to leave does not invalidate my claim that anarchy is wrong.

 

If you murder someone, expect the entire community to come gunning for you. You steal something from someone, expect most of your stuff to be dispersed throughout the community by the time you get home. The law keeps itself though the community, not through a police force.

 

Your context-dropping skills continue to baffle me.

 

There's a reason for the court and the appeal system: the government presents their evidence to a judge and the defendant questions the evidence. If any party feels important evidence was missing, they can appeal. Each hearing is fair and most importantly, objective.

 

Men are not infallible: that's why even if the public is certain that a suspect is guilty, he still receives a fair trial to review the evidence. The "gunning for you" form of justice is exactly what it sounds like: an angry mob comes to lynch an individual. Remember what happened in the post-Civil War Southern states? The KKK came and lynched anyone they didn't like. The blacks were a minority--white people made up the "community". The community agreed that a certain black person was bad, and they came gunning for him.

 

Same goes for stealing. What is stealing? What are the degrees of punishment for certain times of stealing? Again, no man can flip through a book and learn what exactly is forbidden and what exactly would be the punishment should he choose to commit the crime; they would only be answered through unwritted laws--subjective laws that are impossible to follow. You said there wouldn't be a court of law. So...an individual is suspected of stealing and the mobs just raids his house? That's certainly what it seems like you're telling me.

 

You can't drop a context and expect everything else to be the same. Out of context, "murderers and thieves would be punished in anarchy by the community" sounds great--in its context, it's whim-worshiping mob rule.

 

EDIT: I just remember a story that depicts anarchy as you'd like it: Things Fall Apart. It's about a primitive Nigerian tribe. All the "justice" is done by the community, for the community. There aren't any people in charge; just people's who's opinions are respected in the village.

 

I'm sure I don't need to describe the horrors done by such a community.

[BTGBullseye]

You keep saying it's Anarchy, but I've never once said anything except RATIONAL ANARCHY.

 

Which I've said many times, is an absurd contradiction in terms.

I feel I must quote myself here...

You obviously STILL haven't read up on it.

 

 

No laws except the unspoken/unwritten ones that everyone knows about.

 

Unspoken/unwritten ones means subjective, undefinable, rules that are based off of whims.

They are not undefinable, I just defined them for you.

(do unto others, etc.)

No whims involved, they have been the basis of civilization throughout known history. I have yet to see a civilization that didn't use them as a base for the laws.

 

 

You have a disagreement, you take the issue to the community. Whoever the community sides with, wins.

 

There is no such thing as a "community"; when you say "community", you mean "a group of individuals".

Quit with the false definitions, they just make you look like an idiot... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/community

 

Wait, nevermind... Keep up the false definitions, they make you look like an idiot.

 

So in essence, you're saying that a group votes (a group doesn't think, so when a group 'decides' something, this is a majority vote) The community has no rules to follow; the community ARE the rules--this means anything.

 

This is mob rule, no matter how you put it.

I think I mentioned this before, but I'll post it again anyways.

 

You're looking at your ideal world and comparing it to the worst you can think of for mine. How about I just start portraying your ideals where the judges are all paid off to make a ruling based on what just one person wants, or where the government is corrupt enough to put a idiot on the bench who can't find truth if it walked up and slapped him repeatedly while yelling "I'm the truth"?

 

 

You don't like it, you are perfectly free to leave, or not bother arguing again.

 

This is Argument from Dismissal fallacy. Just because I'm free to leave does not invalidate my claim that anarchy is wrong.

You have a problem with how it's run, and no one will change, you leave. How has it ever been different anywhere? Why do you think that should ever change? How would you change it, and how could you ever change it?

 

 

If you murder someone, expect the entire community to come gunning for you. You steal something from someone, expect most of your stuff to be dispersed throughout the community by the time you get home. The law keeps itself though the community, not through a police force.

 

Your context-dropping skills continue to baffle me.

 

There's a reason for the court and the appeal system: the government presents their evidence to a judge and the defendant questions the evidence. If any party feels important evidence was missing, they can appeal. Each hearing is fair and most importantly, objective.

 

Men are not infallible: that's why even if the public is certain that a suspect is guilty, he still receives a fair trial to review the evidence. *additional unrelated content*

 

Same goes for stealing. What is stealing? What are the degrees of punishment for certain times of stealing? Again, no man can flip through a book and learn what exactly is forbidden and what exactly would be the punishment should he choose to commit the crime; they would only be answered through unwritted laws--subjective laws that are impossible to follow. You said there wouldn't be a court of law. So...an individual is suspected of stealing and the mobs just raids his house? That's certainly what it seems like you're telling me.

 

You can't drop a context and expect everything else to be the same. Out of context, "murderers and thieves would be punished in anarchy by the community" sounds great--in its context, it's whim-worshiping mob rule.

 

*additional unrelated content*

First off, it's not if you suspect something, it's if someone did something. If you suspect your friends of lying to you, do you go around telling everyone that they lie, or do you wait and find proof of their lie, and then confront them with it? Same principle...

 

Same goes for stealing. What is stealing?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

 

What are the degrees of punishment for certain times of stealing?

Do unto others... In other words, whatever he/she steals gets returned, and the reparations are equivalent/equivalent value item/s removed from the possession of the thief... This I already mentioned, though you seem to have conveniently forgotten that part. (and many others along the way)

 

If you're thinking of someone that doesn't have anything of value stealing something, he would likely be expelled from the community and told not to return on pain of death. (whether it is just an idle threat or not depends on how serious the crime is) If it's a minor thing like stealing food to stay alive, why wouldn't it just be forgiven? There are very few people in the world that selfish.

[Doom Shepherd]

You have a problem with how it's run, and no one will change, you leave.

 

You DO realize that what you say here equates to "Love it or leave it," which has been used for the last 40+ years as an example of the kind of statement generally made by an irrational establishment type? The diametric opposite of what you claim to be?

 

Just checking. Ideologic purity must be maintained.

[Michael Archer]

Doom Shepard, that's Guilt by Association fallacy--but your heart is in the right place.

 

It's Appeal to Dismissal fallacy, nothing more; it shouldn't be given your intellectual energy.

[Doom Shepherd]

your heart is in the right place.

 

You only say that because you've never seen my X-rays.

 

"Down a size and a half! And this time, I'll keep it off ."