Hugo's defence of anarchy

[gnam]

Is there any room left over there?

Ha ha ha!

In fact, you will see that you are very much in the minority now!

I suggest that you do some reading on libertarianism to start. In general, libertarians are anarchists who do make room for a very small and limited role of government in society. Anarchists do not. Anarchists categorically identify all forms of government as coercion and a priori they are wrong.

When you identify yourself as an anarchist, you set yourself up for being misunderstood. There are a lot of people who say they are anarchists but in fact are socialists or communists in denial. They seem to be the great majority. They will also categorically refuse any connection between capitalism and anarchy.

Sorry about this... I'm new here but could you restate as clearly as possible why it is that capitalism and anarchism are inextricably bound together... if that is what you are saying?? (I think that's what I read earlier but many of these posts are very long and I'm not so sure anymore)

[Charles Anthony]

Sorry about this... I'm new here

Welcome to the forum.

My recommendation is simple: never be afraid or intimidated to post or ask in the forum and never take (or give) anything personal or get offended. Always have a sense of humor even if it seems nobody else does.

Foremost: read rules for this forum. Not all forums are the same.

but could you restate as clearly as possible why it is that capitalism and anarchism are inextricably bound together... if that is what you are saying??

That is exactly what is being said in this defence of anarchy.

In simple terms, if nobody forces anybody else to do something against their will, you have anarchy. As a result of this, the natural way of doing commerce and trade without force would be pure capitalism.

----

The link between true anarchy and true capitalism is generally philosophical because both depend on extreme (and not likely achievable) freedom.

Commonly, the confusion arises from practical capitalism today. We are NOT living a true capitalist economy. A politician who does a favor for a business friend (or vice versa) is NOT capitalism it is abusing capitalism.

I will refer you to a previous post: Theses on Capitalism, Economics which does an excellent job at illustrating the confusion.

----

CAVEAT:

In this defence of anarchy, nobody is responsible for anybody else. Charity is fine but nobody is forced to be charitable.

Not everybody defines anarchy nor capitalism in this way. Some confused communists and socialists and violent insurgents call themselves anarchists. Their definition of anarchy differs mainly because they impose a sense of responsibility to their fellow man. They would force people to help other people.

[gnam]

That is exactly what is being said in this defence of anarchy.

In simple terms, if nobody forces anybody else to do something against their will, you have anarchy. As a result of this, the natural way of doing commerce and trade without force would be pure capitalism.

OK, I have skimmed some of the stuff on capitalism you posted the link for. I think I get your drift but I'm still not sure why capitalism and not some other form of barter trade or something that makes little or no use of investment finance. (I think I have an idea where the answers might lie but haven't really articulated them for myself... maybe you can help)... Or maybe I'm just way off track with that question and have a lot more homework to do?? What's your take??

[Charles Anthony]

I'm still not sure why capitalism and not some other form of barter trade or something that makes little or no use of investment finance.

It is only because of volume.

The bigger the population that is trading together, the more difficult it is to barter. Thus, we develop a currency. A small population would likely stick with barter.

Imagine being a vegetarian and you want to trade with the blacksmith but the blacksmith does not want your vegetables only meat.

You go to the butcher but he just wants firewood (he does not want your vegetables and he does not want any metal products from the blacksmith). It becomes easier for everybody to trade a currency (gold, paper, salt, oil, whatever) that everybody recognizes.

Also, people save for tomorrow. The fact that we can not save EVERYTHING far in the future creates different types of investment finance markets.

[Charles Anthony]

These are called 'public goods', and it is generally acknowledged that there is merit in having a government or collective entity provide the good so that everyone can gain the value that otherwise would be forgone for lack of being privately supplied.

Now we are talking.

Keep going. Take this to the next step of explaining how coersion is the only way of achieving your "merit" or whatever it is that you are trying to clear.

Who (or what) says whose money it is? On what principle is the ownership of the money asserted?

The ownership of the money is asserted by the same principle which bars me from claiming you as my slave.

You are barred from claiming me as your slave in two ways I can think of. A-the law prevents it, and B-I (along with any partisans I can muster) won't allow it.

Do you refer to A or B?

I refer to neither but rather a sense of right or wrong felt by a slave with respect to his lack of freedom.

If your law or your gang turned on you and permitted me to take you as my slave against your will, would you accept it as my right?

Charles,

I am curious to see what your answers would be to the following. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted any of your positions. For now I am going to ignore the "taxation is wrong because it is collected by force" issue.

Thank you! Believe it or not but I am actually starting to get tired of it too.

Let's assume that everything in Canada would be provided by private companies, and no government services exist (since there are no taxes to pay for them).

I will tell you my opinions and briefly provide reasons or explanations.

First, to summarize: I do not believe that I have the right to aggress against you -- unless, of course, it is in self-defense because you aggress against me first. Period. If everybody in the world followed that rule, I can not imagine anything being more peaceful.

I do not need a law or a government to tell me that slavery is wrong or to define slavery on my behalf.

I do not need a law or a government to tell me that theft is wrong or to define theft on my behalf.

I do not need a law or a government to tell me that assault is wrong or to define assault on my behalf.

From the above, you should be able to answer your own questions on my behalf. Nevertheless, here I go:

1. Also assume that everyone is moral (i.e. people like those who ran Enron and stole shareholders' money do not exist). The cost of services in high population areas would be much lower than areas with small populations, based on the efficiency of providing services to so many people in a small area. Are we willing to say that in Canada, people in rural areas must pay substantially more for basic services like sewage treatement, electricity, natural gas, etc.? Currently governments spread out the costs of these services (although fluctuations in price still exist). Shouldn't Canadians everywhere be able to access the necessities of life for more or less the same cost?

No, they should not.

1) "able to access the necessities of life" means nothing; what you are really saying is "somebody else provide the necessities of life" because they have to come from somewhere

2) if I am stranded in the arctic, are YOU going to come and serve me supper??

3) my arctic example seems far fetched, but not when you look at the whole world: there are people starving outside of Canada

4) to follow through with your premise means that I must force other people to abide by it even if they do not want to be charitable

2. Clearly not everyone is moral.

I agree. Neither am I.

Without any governments around to monitor corporate behaviour what is stopping people (like those who ran Enron) from gouging Canadian citizens every chance they get? I have a feeling you are going to say private police forces... so maybe just go to my next question...

No, you are wrong. I have a very cold hearted opinion on that: private people (not police) will keep them in check. In fact, it is precisely governments which grant corporations a bizarre special legal status that allows them to shirk their responsibilities. Governments protect corporations.

Let me put to you subtly: If I was Mr.Rotten-Enron-Crook and I was cheating other people out of their money, I would fear assassination.

Please do not get me wrong: I deplore violence and I do not advocate violence to settle scores. However, I recognize that other people will use violence freely.

If somebody like Ghandi and Martin Luther King could be assassinated along with all of the countless innocent victims of violence everywhere who become forgotten, it is laughable to appeal to the government or the police to protect us. I think we should not take our safety for granted and we should do our utmost to care for each other. I believe in the right to bare arms.

You do not have to be as cold-hearted as me to appreciate the glories of anarchy. You do not have to make the "people like those who ran Enron and stole shareholders' money do not exist" assumption. It is completely unnecessary. Here is what The Giant had to say:

Without a gov't regulatory body, they would laugh at any attempt to collect arbitrarily inposed fines by the general populace.

They don't need arbitrary fines. In the case of Enron, once news broke of the corruption stockholders deserted them as fast as they could sell. The stock was in freefall and, by the time the government even read the news, Enron was doomed as a company. The executives and accountants involved were ruined and will never work in their fields again. All the employees have to endure at least temporary unemployment. I think it would be very hard to find a harsher punishment for a company than this.

from

Is government necessary?

[Charles Anthony]

3. With a private 'police' force, what stops the person (or people) who control that force from abusing their power?

The same thing that stops people from abusing their power now: nothing.

Be realistic: how are they going to make the most money if they are constantly abusing people?

Slaves do not work as efficiently as salaried employees.

However, there is a more clever and convincing way of addressing that issue. Again, I will quote:

But their authority is not the authority of the state, and I don't want it to be. I don't want some mall cop able to drag me off to their own private prison and lock me up for a few weeks on whatever pretext.

You're more comfortable with State police being able to drag you off to their own private prison (and it is private - it's just monopolised) and lock you up for a few weeks on whatever pretext? Why? At least with a private system you could call your own police and have them insist that you be tried immediately or released immediately, otherwise, your police will assume that you have been kidnapped and attempt to rescue you.

Where's the checks and balances against State police?

In any event, it's highly unlikely that imprisonment would be used by a private judicial system. It's expensive and doesn't compensate the victim. More likely is a return to the concept of restitution for wrongdoing.

from

Not enough cops

What prevents them from arbitrarily deciding that person X violated a law and then sending in their 'police' to imprison that person?

The same thing that stops the police from abusing their power now: nothing.

What happens if the people who control two different 'police' forces decide that the other is violating the law?

They go to war. However, war is expensive -- unless of course you are a government, money is unlimited and labor is unlimited.

Could we not have mini-wars amongst these private forces?

Of course.

Realistically, the two sides will negotiate and try to buy eachother out. Have you ever seen a gangster movie where one of the underlings crosses the other gangs turf? Guess what happens? The two mob bosses meet face to face and decide who how to mete out punishment. The mob boss does not care about his underling. He just wants peace. Street fights are avoided by throwing his underling to the other side.

Remember: gangsters or protection rackets will not make money if there is no peace.

4. One of the principles underlying our current society is that of judicial independence. Where would our judicial system come from if there were no government services?

This is interesting. A couple of years ago, Hugo went to great lengths to explain private justice and I have very little to add. Here is a sampling:

I see a problem developing from our current policing system, which I also think would be an inherent problem under any 'self-policing' system. It is the profit motive.

Your argument is only examining a symptom, not the problem. The actual problem is the tragedy of the commons. In an anarchist society, without public property, no police force would be allowed to set up speed traps and so forth without the permission of the owners of the road.

The owners of the road are dictated to by the consumers, the drivers, because if the drivers are dissatisfied they will pick an alternate route and the road owners will lose money. Therefore, in the anarchist society the level of policing for speed limits will exactly reflect the compromise in the public mind between safety, and speed or convenience. There will be multiple compromises, and so there will be multiple solutions. One size does not fit all and never will.

How would an anarchist recover anything without violating the rights of the tresspasser?

This has been very well dealt with in the works of David Friedman. I'm going to attempt a brief and wholly inferior summary here which I hope will suffice.

Basically, the anarchist has no need to violate the rights of the trespasser. He can request that the trespasser appear at a mutually agreeable tribunal and be bound by its decision. If the trespasser refuses, he will have the huge black mark against him that he was accused of a crime and refused to submit to justice. It is a tacit admission of guilt and a declaration of irresponsibility and lack of remorse. In an exclusively private society, he will find it almost impossible to get employment, goods and services or even to move around freely. Therefore, the strong incentive is to submit to a court and have this black mark erased, to pay one's debt as it were.

As to your question of recovering costs of catching the thief, it's really simple and already done in courts today. The court simply awards damages plus costs. The thief is made to pay the full cost of his crime to his victim. Of course, under our current system victims get nothing. The state holds their property and their very lives as being truly worthless.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that the policing system must belong to a non-aligned 'social structure mechanism' with standardized penalties, and a shared cost through the taxpayer.

Certainly, and if only the state could ever provide that! But it cannot. Until Jesus gets involved in the policing business this is not going to happen. Any political body is by very definition aligned, to the majority in a democracy, or to the king in a monarchy, for instance.

As to the standardized penalties, a brief review of sentencing should show you that penalties are by no means standardized and are a matter of the whimsy of the court.

As to shared cost, no taxation system truly shares the cost. Somebody always has to pay more than their fair share, and some people will always be freeloading. The only way to ensure a pricing system that is truly fair is with a market.

I honestly suggest going through the rest of this thread. The only thing that might set me apart is that I do not care if everybody is happy and better off in anarchy. I get the sense that Hugo's outlook was that everybody would be better off. For me, I am comfortable with anarchy because it is right.

To illustrate: if I was poor and a rich man dropped his wallet as he passed me, I would be better off keeping his wallet and he would be able to continue being rich. However, that would not be right. My outlook on anarchy is that its construct is right regardless of whether it serves everybody's needs or desires.

If private companies hired judges, how likely is it that those judges would then rule against their employers if the alternative was to be fired?

In your example, yes, it would be very likely. However, that is not how justice would work. You are implying that I would be forced to sit in front of your judge. That just sounds like a kangaroo court. Give me a specific example of a crime.

5. Where would laws come from? Without a government to pass laws, how would people know what conduct is wrong and what is acceptable?

Pretty much the same as they are now: through negotiation or bargaining between individuals or clubs.

A few more things about my outlook on anarchy and justice.

First, I do not believe anarchy is stable. I firmly believe that there will always be people whose natural reflex is to control others and there will always be people whose natural reflex will be submission. That is why governments get away with vast corruption and evil.

Second, I do not see justice/retribution/punishment/vengeance as an objectively universal concept. In other words, justice is like happiness or good food. Some people forgive and some people forget. Others want vengeance while others just want some compensation.

I have a question for you: What is justice?

[bk59]

First, to summarize: I do not believe that I have the right to aggress against you -- unless, of course, it is in self-defense because you aggress against me first. Period. If everybody in the world followed that rule, I can not imagine anything being more peaceful.

I do not need a law or a government to tell me that slavery is wrong or to define slavery on my behalf.

I do not need a law or a government to tell me that theft is wrong or to define theft on my behalf.

I do not need a law or a government to tell me that assault is wrong or to define assault on my behalf.

I'm with you in terms of "I don't have the right to harm you and you don't have the right to harm me." And maybe you don't need a law or justice system to tell you what theft is. But how about self-defense? Because self-defense to you may not be self-defense to someone else. So now, in the world with no government, we have a concept that is variable depending upon the individual. I'll come back to this in my next post since it has more to do with the issues there.

No, they should not.

1) "able to access the necessities of life" means nothing; what you are really saying is "somebody else provide the necessities of life" because they have to come from somewhere

2) if I am stranded in the arctic, are YOU going to come and serve me supper??

3) my arctic example seems far fetched, but not when you look at the whole world: there are people starving outside of Canada

4) to follow through with your premise means that I must force other people to abide by it even if they do not want to be charitable

I'm not saying that "somebody else [must] provide the necessities of life" in the sense that your arctic example seems to imply. What I am trying to get across is that without some entity spreading out the cost burden of some of these necessities (for example sewage treatment or electricity or roads) then some people will pay much more for these services than others soley because of their location. You may be alright with this and you are (obviously) entitled to your opinion. I just happen to think that society is better off when its citizens equally share some basic burdens allowing everyone the chance to live as they wish. But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

No, you are wrong. I have a very cold hearted opinion on that: private people (not police) will keep them in check. In fact, it is precisely governments which grant corporations a bizarre special legal status that allows them to shirk their responsibilities. Governments protect corporations.

Let me put to you subtly: If I was Mr.Rotten-Enron-Crook and I was cheating other people out of their money, I would fear assassination.

Please do not get me wrong: I deplore violence and I do not advocate violence to settle scores. However, I recognize that other people will use violence freely.

...

Here is what The Giant had to say:

...

OK, yes, governments protect corporations from having their executives assassinated due to vigilante justice. And yes, in Hugo's example the shareholders of Enron punished the company when they learned of what happened. At least, as much as they could. Because let's face it, when the news became public the damage was already done. The people Hugo is talking about did not actually punish the company and ruin it. The company was already ruined because of what the executives did.

The point of laws in this case, is to prevent what happened in Enron's case, not just punish companies for this behaviour after the fact. The system isn't perfect; clearly it did not prevent Enron from doing what it did. And there will always be people who try to get around the laws (and some will succeed), even after they are revised to fix the holes that Enron found. But the laws do prevent at least some companies from behaving unethically and stealing shareholders' money. The examples of private police forces only deal with the punishment aspect. Who will take care of the prevention aspect if not the government? And while some people would undoubtedly act ethically simply out of fear of vigilante justice (or private police force justice), others will not. History shows us that there are always people who will attemp to take advantage of others no matter what the consequences, simply because they think that they will get away with it.

[bk59]

I have no idea why the quotes are not working when I previewed this... so I'll just try to indent the quoted text... Sorry.

3. With a private 'police' force, what stops the person (or people) who control that force from abusing their power?

The same thing that stops people from abusing their power now: nothing.

Be realistic: how are they going to make the most money if they are constantly abusing people?

Slaves do not work as efficiently as salaried employees.

However, there is a more clever and convincing way of addressing that issue. Again, I will quote:

...

At least with a private system you could call your own police and have them insist that you be tried immediately or released immediately, otherwise, your police will assume that you have been kidnapped and attempt to rescue you.

Where's the checks and balances against State police?

In any event, it's highly unlikely that imprisonment would be used by a private judicial system. It's expensive and doesn't compensate the victim. More likely is a return to the concept of restitution for wrongdoing.

from

Not enough cops

What prevents them from arbitrarily deciding that person X violated a law and then sending in their 'police' to imprison that person?

The same thing that stops the police from abusing their power now: nothing.

You claim, twice, that there is nothing stopping the police from abusing their power right now. This is clearly not the case. We have an entire court system set up to do just that. If the police break into your home without justification and seize evidence, you can go to court and get that evidence thrown out. If a police officer randomly walks up to you and beats you, you can go to court. Police even have departments set up within their forces to monitor their behaviour. This is also the answer to Hugo's point about the "checks and balances against State police". These exist in our government. I have not heard any comparable alternative proposed for a world without a government. Hugo says that your own police force will rescue you. What if you don't have a police force? Or yours isn't as strong as the one that kidnapped you? This turns into "might is right", where if you don't have the riches and/or resources to protect yourself then you are subject to the whims of others who have a bigger mob at their command.

As for your point about slaves being less efficient than salaried employees, let's assume that you are correct (and I think that you probably are). For my example I am going to say that a slave will only be as efficient as half a salaried employee (who is happy, working voluntarily, etc.). Let's say I have my own private police force and run a company that builds roads. I decide that I'm going to hire five 'police' and use 15 slaves. The 'police' are going to keep my slaves in line, make sure they don't run off, and make sure they keep working. Using my handy-dandy conversion rate, this means I am getting the equivalent of 7.5 happy, salaried employees. That means I'm saving 2.5 salaries by using slave labour (since I have to pay for my 5 'police'). I might even pay the police less than I would have paid the labourers, since all they have to do is sit around and keep the slaves in line.

My point is that you can't assume that, without the rule of law and a government to enforce it, a private company / police force would play by the rules simply because it is cost effective. Let's face it, if it wasn't efficient to use slave labour then chances are the Southern states wouldn't have tried to secede from the USA and there would have been no US Civil War.

What happens if the people who control two different 'police' forces decide that the other is violating the law?

They go to war. However, war is expensive -- unless of course you are a government, money is unlimited and labor is unlimited.

...

Remember: gangsters or protection rackets will not make money if there is no peace.

That's only true up until the point where one side thinks that it is more beneficial to just eliminate the competition. You can make decent money by dividing up territory with your competition during a time of peace. Or you can make more money by taking a temporary loss, going to war, destroying your opponent, and taking his turf. Then you make even more money.

It's also helpful to note that people don't always behave rationally. Even if it was in someone's best interest to not use his/her army (which is essentially what a private police force is) to go to war with someone else, that does not mean that they won't. In a world without a government to maintain order, wars like this would likely erupt.

...

...

Your argument is only examining a symptom, not the problem. The actual problem is the tragedy of the commons. In an anarchist society, without public property, no police force would be allowed to set up speed traps and so forth without the permission of the owners of the road.

...

Why wouldn't a private force be allowed to set up a speed trap without the owner's permission? When a group of armed men walks up to you, put guns to your head and say, "We're going to set up a 'speed trap' on your road. You got a problem with that?"... what exactly is that owner going to say? Remember, not everyone can afford their own private police force.

Basically, the anarchist has no need to violate the rights of the trespasser. He can request that the trespasser appear at a mutually agreeable tribunal and be bound by its decision. If the trespasser refuses, he will have the huge black mark against him that he was accused of a crime and refused to submit to justice. It is a tacit admission of guilt and a declaration of irresponsibility and lack of remorse. In an exclusively private society, he will find it almost impossible to get employment, goods and services or even to move around freely. Therefore, the strong incentive is to submit to a court and have this black mark erased, to pay one's debt as it were.

First, there is an assumption that it is possible to arrive at a "mutually agreeable tribunal". In the above example, the trespasser in question could easily claim that the anarchist was falsely accusing him and trying to stack the "tribunal". He could then claim that the anarchist was defaming him and ask for his own tribunal. Even assuming that you could mutually agree on this, who pays for it? Who agrees the rules by which the tribunal will proceed? Can you not see that there is a huge waste of resources involved in trying to sort all of this out every single time? Because for each case, you would have to go out, find a tribunal that the two people could agree on, agree on the procedure, etc.

Any political body is by very definition aligned, to the majority in a democracy, or to the king in a monarchy, for instance.

As to the standardized penalties, a brief review of sentencing should show you that penalties are by no means standardized and are a matter of the whimsy of the court.

Yes, the legislative branch is elected by the majority in a democracy. But our court system upholds certain constitutional principles that are independent of what the (simple) majority wants. Our constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that every citizen has certain rights that cannot be taken away by the majority. Penalties are standardized to a certain degree. Yes, the courts have some flexibility in handing sentences out. But these are not whims, and are subject to strict guidelines.

I honestly suggest going through the rest of this thread.

I will try. Unfortunately there is only so much time in a day. So if I repeat something that's already been said or answered, please be patient.

If private companies hired judges, how likely is it that those judges would then rule against their employers if the alternative was to be fired?

In your example, yes, it would be very likely. However, that is not how justice would work. You are implying that I would be forced to sit in front of your judge. That just sounds like a kangaroo court. Give me a specific example of a crime.

But according to the above example, there is some type of judge. Some "mutually agreeable tribunal". So who pays for that? I really don't see how a court system without a government could possibly work. It seems to go against centuries of history. Leaving this type of justice up to individuals to work out amongst themselves seems... unlikely to work.

But you asked for an example... so... let's say a woman comes forward and accuses a powerful man of raping her. There are no witnesses to the actual rape. The man "owns" the police force in the area as well as the local hospitals. Who investigates the crime? When the woman walks into the hospital who would look for and collect any physical evidence of the rape? How would this proceed in the world that we are discussing, a world with no objective government?

5. Where would laws come from? Without a government to pass laws, how would people know what conduct is wrong and what is acceptable?

Pretty much the same as they are now: through negotiation or bargaining between individuals or clubs.

But laws don't really come from negotiation or bargaining between individuals or clubs. For example, criminal law is based on what Parliament says is criminal law. Much of this has been handed down for centuries and updated through the years. There is also the common law, law decided through cases that determines how the courts decide future cases. Bringing back the idea of self-defense that I mentioned in my last post... Self-defense is defined in certain ways in our current system. Without this basis in law for what constitutes self-defense, how would anyone in the anarchist world know what self-defense is?

I have a question for you: What is justice?

This post is already WAY too long to attempt to answer that one. It probably deserves its own thread. Plus... I'm too tired to try. Maybe later.

[Charles Anthony]

Check out this

thread about the QUOTATION feature to find out how they fail if you have too many in one post.

But how about self-defense? Because self-defense to you may not be self-defense to someone else.

Excellent point. Self-defense is subjective. My answer is simple: anarchists could use the same definition that we use now.

However, in practical terms, it does not matter.

I'm not saying that "somebody else [must] provide the necessities of life" in the sense that your arctic example seems to imply.

Yes, you are because your government forces everybody to contribute. You have no choice in the matter.

What I am trying to get across is that without some entity spreading out the cost burden of some of these necessities (for example sewage treatment or electricity or roads) then some people will pay much more for these services than others soley because of their location.

I have no problem with an "entity" sharing cost burdens -- so long as individuals have the choice to opt out and go to a competitor.

Look closer at your example: farmers NEVER get the same utility benefits or services as people living in the middle of downtown. Should farmers pay extra to subsidize for downtowners' convenience of hygiene and lifestyle?

You may be alright with this and you are (obviously) entitled to your opinion. I just happen to think that society is better off when its citizens equally share some basic burdens allowing everyone the chance to live as they wish. But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

What do you mean by "chance to live as they wish"?

You are forcing people to subsidize other people even if they do not wish to do so.

OK, yes, governments protect corporations from having their executives assassinated due to vigilante justice.

No. I am talking about how a corporate status can avoid legal liability.

If you wanted to sue a corporation for damages, it is possible that the people who did the damage are never touched -- the government enforces that legal status.

Because let's face it, when the news became public the damage was already done. The people Hugo is talking about did not actually punish the company and ruin it. The company was already ruined because of what the executives did.

You are getting the order wrong. The point is that the publication of the news ruined the company instantly better than what a government could do. If nobody knew, they could have continued their fraud.

Think of it this way: by granting corporate status, the government is complicit in fooling the little people (who really lost) into trusting the corporation.

[Charles Anthony]

I understand that poor people can not afford security guards. The reality is that we already have two-tiered street policing and justice. It is not fair to think that our poor neighborhoods are served equally as our rich neighborhoods happen to be.

Also, in a private market for security, there would never be an employment issue of quotas or reverse discrimination in the forces.

And while some people would undoubtedly act ethically simply out of fear of vigilante justice (or private police force justice), others will not.

That is the same now.

History shows us that there are always people who will attemp to take advantage of others no matter what the consequences, simply because they think that they will get away with it.

Current events and history also shows us that more violence and misery has come about directly from coercive governments.

You claim, twice, that there is nothing stopping the police from abusing their power right now. This is clearly not the case.

If you resist arrest or refuse to obey a police officer who is over-stepping the law, you will not be treated equally. After the fact, somebody may be interested in hearing your case. However, if you have a private security guard that follows you around, your security guard can not "legally" stop a police officer from arresting you. Also, the police will call in re-inforcements until you lose -- all funded by the tax-payer.

I firmly believe that a person should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Most people say they do too but in effect, they do not.

I believe that to the extreme. What we have now should be called "after we arrest you, we will hear what you have to say and then we might assume you to be innocent until we decide to release you" instead.

We have an entire court system set up to do just that. If the police break into your home without justification and seize evidence, you can go to court and get that evidence thrown out.

Forgive me but I am stopping you right there. The recent ordeal by Mahar Arar and the horror of America's new

anti-habeas corpus law make my anarchy look better and better.

I have not heard any comparable alternative proposed for a world without a government. Hugo says that your own police force will rescue you. What if you don't have a police force? Or yours isn't as strong as the one that kidnapped you?

You have to start looking outside of the box and compare to markets that are NOT monopolized by the government. Also, consider: who (other than yourself, your family and your friends) benefits from your safety? Think of somebody who does NOT care about you personally but still cares about your safety. The best one is: your employer.

Your argument for government monopolized security can be applied to the market for health and dental employee benefits. Look outside of the box: do you REALLY think employers provide dental benefits because they care about your teeth? They want to keep you from getting a job elsewhere and they want to keep off sick days.

What do you think an employer would do if something threatened his employee's ability to come to work each day?

Often practical anarchism is attacked by suggesting that it devolves into mini-kingdoms whereby people effectively become serfs of corporations. That is like saying your employer would rather fix your teeth himself instead of giving you a benefit package and letting you pick your own dentist.

My point is that you can't assume that, without the rule of law and a government to enforce it, a private company / police force would play by the rules simply because it is cost effective.

Of course you can make that assumption. We make that assumption everday.

Have you ever served the public in a retail setting? The best incentive to provide good and reliable service is because you want to keep customers coming back.

When I walk into a fast-food chain and order, I assume that the food is safe. Guess what would happen if I got food poisoning? The ENTIRE chain would suffer if the news broke out. Guess what else: have you ever heard of somebody getting food-poisoning when eating out? Usually, it is at an independent restaurant, if at all. Fast-food chains have a good record for safety.

Let's face it, if it wasn't efficient to use slave labour then chances are the Southern states wouldn't have tried to secede from the USA and there would have been no US Civil War.

Maybe or maybe not. I am still comfortable (and I assume you are too) self-righteously saying that slavery is wrong. We could probably argue that a person who is paid would work harder but I do not care. I oppose slavery on principle in the same way as I support your right to be lazy if you want.

That's only true up until the point where one side thinks that it is more beneficial to just eliminate the competition. You can make decent money by dividing up territory with your competition during a time of peace.

Your doom-and-gloom scenario is what we have now: the government eliminates the competition.

My anarchy would at least give you the choice to opt out or get the service elsewhere.

Even if it was in someone's best interest to not use his/her army (which is essentially what a private police force is) to go to war with someone else, that does not mean that they won't. In a world without a government to maintain order, wars like this would likely erupt.

That is just a guess. I do not think that is a fair conclusion to make. The checks and balances that you identify do not convince me that things would be more violent.

Why wouldn't a private force be allowed to set up a speed trap without the owner's permission?

Just to clarify because you used the term "allowed", anarchy would not identify such an action is right. You should ask yourself: what is the difference now?

Burglars break and enter other people's property everyday. What do we have now that is different? Do you think we are better able to prevent assault and theft and property damage? I think not.

Remember, not everyone can afford their own private police force.

I poor people do not get a fair shake in our justice and crime prevention now anyways.

First, there is an assumption that it is possible to arrive at a "mutually agreeable tribunal". In the above example, the trespasser in question could easily claim that the anarchist was falsely accusing him and trying to stack the "tribunal". He could then claim that the anarchist was defaming him and ask for his own tribunal.

No. How can one claim that the tribunal was stacked if the two both agreed upon it?

Even assuming that you could mutually agree on this, who pays for it?

Whoever wants the dispute to be resolved. Again, I would suggest your employer would be interested in making sure you get back to work.

Nevertheless, whoever loses the trial could be made to pay the bill.

[Charles Anthony]

Who agrees the rules by which the tribunal will proceed?

They both (plaintiff and defendant) agree.

Think of this: you try to sue me. I suggest that we both pitch in a few thousand dollars and hire Judge Gomery to hear our cases. Together, we send a public request -- we print our letters in national newspapers -- to him. He reads our cockamamie request and laughs but takes it on just for kicks. He also misses the attention.

Judge Gomery hears our private trial and passes judgment. Afterwards, if I turn around and say: "Too bad! I am not following his ruling." and try to walk away, every person in the country will know that Charles Anthony is a dirty rotten double-crossing fink and nobody will be my friend anymore. Worse yet: nobody will do business with me and that will be my punishment. The details behind our case will not matter because they trust Judge Gomery.

Now, let us take it a step further and change the name of Gomery to .... say.... Judy! Lo and behold! What do we get?? The glory of capitalism: real justice that does not need government and does not need taxes.

I am also proud to add that those television court-room shows producers pay the judgements. The real losers never pay anything but the trials are real. Read the fine print and the credits that roll fast at the end of the shows.

Can you not see that there is a huge waste of resources involved in trying to sort all of this out every single time?

First of all, NO, I see efficiency to be gained and money to be saved.

Secondly, I do not care if anarchy is more costly in certain scenarios. That is like saying it is more costly to go to school than to sit at home and do nothing.

Third, our justice system is constantly evolving.

Forth, more of the mechanics of possible non-governmental justice systems and arbitration are reviewed at great lengths in this thread as well as in this

Not enough cops thread.

Because for each case, you would have to go out, find a tribunal that the two people could agree on, agree on the procedure, etc.

Nope. It will come to you.

I will boldly predict that several years from now, we will see the commercialization of justice/entertainment flourish as our government-coerced tax-payer-extorted justice system continues to fail. That is an anarchist solution.

In anarchy, who would be hired as the arbitrator?

Personally, I do not care because we have no choice right now.

In our Judge Judy scenario, do you think it really matters what state/jurisdiction/civil/common code is followed? Do you think it really matters if Judge Judy still carries a license to practice law? It would still work marvelously.

But our court system upholds certain constitutional principles that are independent of what the (simple) majority wants.

In anarchy, none of that matters because the plaintiff and the defendant mutually agreed on Judge Judy. That is the whole point.

Yes, the courts have some flexibility in handing sentences out. But these are not whims, and are subject to strict guidelines.

They are more complicated than necessary.

The plaintiff and the defendant could hire Dr. Laura or Jerry Springer to hear their case.

let's say a woman comes forward and accuses a powerful man of raping her. There are no witnesses to the

actual rape. The man "owns" the police force in the area as well as the

local hospitals.

With all due respect, this scenario is highly unlikely.

Nevertheless, I will say that the victim will get no justice. She would get no justice either if it happened today anyway. Rich people are able to pay their way out of justice. Today, poor people do not get the same justice as rich people.

Your scenario is akin to asking: "If somebody pulled out a gun and shot me in the head, who would stop the bullet from killing me in an anarchist world?" and then blaming anarchy for being the problem.

But laws don't really come from negotiation or bargaining between individuals or clubs.

Laws may or may not but justice usually does.

Without this basis in law for what constitutes self-defense, how would anyone in the anarchist world know what self-defense is?

They would not have to. It becomes moot.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

I must admit that I am not familiar with 'Judge Judy', though I remember a television show called "The People's Court' with a 'Judge Wapner'. I assume Judy is just a rip-off of this. However,...

if I turn around and say: "Too bad! I am not following his ruling." and try to walk away, every person in the country will know that Charles Anthony is a dirty rotten double-crossing fink and nobody will be my friend anymore. Worse yet: nobody will do business with me and that will be my punishment.

Hilarious. This type of 'punishment by ostracism' might work if 100% of all the other people had no interest in personal gain. Which is pure fantasy. Like believing that anarcho-syndicalism could be accepted and practiced tomorrow. Or 'pure, voluntary communism'.

[Charles Anthony]

My dear Flea,

Your reference to "The People's Court" is correct. They are similar shows. However, your latest shot at applied non-coersion social philosophy is inside out, at best. Your condition of "if 100% of all the other people had no interest in personal gain" is as relevent as would be "if 100% of all the other people" could sing the national anthem in harmony.

Yours trolly,

Ch. A.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Your condition of "if 100% of all the other people had no interest in personal gain" is as relevent as would be "if 100% of all the other people" could sing the national anthem in harmony.

That may be so, but it speaks to your suggestion...

Worse yet: nobody will do business with me

which is the part I must call out as fantasy.

[Charles Anthony]

Worse yet: nobody will do business with me

which is the part I must call out as fantasy.

What you forget is that a non-coercive community will rely on reputations.

Our coercive society creates the fantasies of blind trust and legitimacy. We look for government stamps of approval. Market forces can deal with poor performance and injustice much more swiftly than can government do anything.

[Charles Anthony]

Charles is very clever at playing the emotional side of his argument with questions such as that.

Nah! I just take things to ridiculous extremes!

I must admit he's one of the few posters that has moved me on the political spectrum... more towards a libertarian viewpoint then I previously held.

You make me feel important now!

A definitive right and wrong (whether correct or not) with which one can abide by and know that they won't be prosecuted or harmed if they play by the rules.

I think that is a naive view. Justice is not free and it does not follow rigid rules. However, it does follow market forces.

For the poor or the less intelligent, justice (and many other things) is not the same as it is for the rich and the smart people. Concepts like "social contract" or "peace" or "justice" or "equality" or "good" or "evil" can mean nothing for the disadvantaged. Their world is dog-eat-dog -- or anarchy. If you doubt that anarchy is untenable, you need only look at the lowest levels of the totem poll and see how they live.

Hugo's arguments are internally consistent but choose to ignore human nature. For that reason an anarchist utopia is an impossible dream much like a communist utopia is an impossible dream.

His absence from the forum appears sudden and I pray that we will hear from him again.

I can not speak for anybody except myself: I agree anarchy is a utopia. It can not happen nor is it stable because of the point you make: human nature.

From my perspective I see no difference between someone who argues that taxation is inherently immoral and coercive and someone who argues that private property is inherently immoral and exploitive. Anarchism and communism are opposite sides of the same coin.

I believe you are wrong. An anarchist outlook has practical applications as a philosophy from which to judge social interaction and from which to suggest policy.

It is analogous to a school teacher encouraging all students to still aim for an A+ knowing full well that not everybody can get that high and each student will likely fail in different areas. Furthermore, the teacher accepts a C as a passing grade but makes no bones about saying a B is better. More importantly, the teacher does not accept cheating. Anarchist models act as a baseline and I believe it is the most righteous standard .

[DarkAngel_]

"anti-statists prefer the term "anarchism". The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, anomie or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance" i read from wikipedia last week, and oh what a sweet peace it would be to have only your rules, that to govern one's self and have moral willingness to aid others, or to travel all day, to be the ultimate choice that is yours how sweet, that peace would be, a individualistic soiciety of 'self-rulers' those who all have no intrest of ruling others.

that is a great image,

[Charles Anthony]

"anti-statists prefer the term "anarchism".

Some anarchists want to move away from the negative stereotyping. Here is one view:

Call Me an Abolitionist, Please

December 18, 2006

Imagine two groups struggling to win (or, in one case, to retain) public support for their respective, opposing causes. The dominant group has managed to define the other’s name to mean “violent, uncivilized destroyers of property and enemies of functioning society” in the public mind, despite that definition being the polar opposite of the truth.

Still, the slandered group continues using the pejorative name to describe itself. “We are violent, uncivilized destroyers of property and enemies of functioning society!” proclaim members of the group. “And we’re proud of it! You’d join us if you only understood us better!”

---

So: you’re a “live and let live” person who believes any initiated coercion is wrong. What DO you call yourself?

I have a suggestion. If you want to abolish the use of initiated coercion, why not call yourself, as I do, an

abolitionist?

Glen Allport

My simple retort is: abolish what? There is nothing inherent in the term "abolitionist" that suggests an opposition to coercion whereas the term "anarchy" unambiguously suggests an opposition to rule. I prefer the term "anarchy" for that reason. Call me a bloody hard-headed grammatically peculiar traditionalist.

how sweet, that peace would be, a individualistic soiciety of 'self-rulers' those who all have no intrest of ruling others.

that is a great image,

I see it that way too. I wonder: do anti-anarchists enjoy controlling others or are they simply afraid of self-control?

Dear LoneFlea&Us,

The market clears because violence is mutually counter-productive.

Only when one fails to wield it effectively over another. It is tremendously productive if you win.

No. Violence and coercion ultimately fail productively because one person can not do the work of two people. [Despite the likely risk of Dooby-Dooby Doo thread drift, I can not resist the temptation of throwing this one out too: one person can not occupy the space of two people either.]

Your perspective is exceedingly short-sighted and will lead people to play football with loaves of bread. Each individual benefits much more from free trade than from expropriation. It is immensely easier to mind one's own selfish business than to make sure that everybody is serving you under duress. In the past 24 hours I enjoyed a coffee, a banana and an avocado yet I have no idea how they got to Canada. I enjoyed an aspartame-enhanced soda and (for better or for worse) I know nothing about aspartame. Should I dream of conquering and controlling the people who deliver or create those products? I would rather be a movie star. Please, oh please do not tell me that I should look to The Almighty State to warn me of the dangers of aspartame.

From what I gather, after many moons of haggling back and forth, you have finally stepped up and advanced your side of the discussion on to a different level. This seems like a break-through of yours, almost a concession:

I suppose my point is that there is no escape from coersion.

We agree. Let us look at things in terms of inevitable control and its efficiency.

It is foolish (and I would say evil but that is a different argument) to think coercion makes things better. More importantly, mastering such control is ridiculous. I am going to step into the realm of supposition (like as if I was in the real world before) now and postulate that most modern-day and successful tyrants or dictators have gum disease and greasy hair. My theory comes from the fact that personal hygiene is a regular obstacle in life that mandates personal work. Outsourcing it is usually more cumbersome than doing it oneself and I wonder whether a successful tyrant has the time. Something has to give: either himself or the control he has over other people. A moment spent washing is a moment where he has no control over others. As such, the most stable situation is for us to be only in control of what we control best: ourselves.

State coersion has shown it can be the most brutal, no doubt, but it potentially can be less pervasively coersive than under anarchy.

If you are talking about historical example, your statement is unfair because there is no level playing field. We can only point to maybe a tiny sample of anarchist history. I prefer ClearWest's statement:

Like many political movements, I see Libertarianism as more of a direction rather than a destination. Just like conservatives want to push for more traditional values, new democrats want to push for more social programs, greens want to push for more environmental regulation; Libertarians want to push for more personal freedoms and responsibilities - thus less government.

Being an extremist, I would play my own devil's advocate by saying that the most exclusive definition of anarchy is highly restrictive (as is the definition of "perfect competition" or "communism" as economic models) making a true anarchist society highly impossible to determine. On the other hand, One could easily say that historical example disproves your statement because all real-life examples were destroyed by external invasion. In other words, as a social model, anarchy is internally stable.

True, there would be no 'state coersion' per se, but that role would instantly be taken up by the individual, likely in spades.

What is the problem? I would rather face one adversary than a mob of coersionists. I can not imagine advocating the opposite.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

I see it that way too. I wonder: do anti-anarchists enjoy controlling others or are they simply afraid of self-control?

No, I am afraid of your ability to self-control. I would rather have the police watch over both of us that have to trust (or, mistrust and maintain eternal vigilance over) you. No offence (to you personally) intended. People that could be trusted with an absence of law are likely 1 per 10,000,000.

I prefer the term "anarchy" for that reason. Call me a bloody hard-headed grammatically peculiar traditionalist.

I have already arrived at that conclusion (When I have time, I'll go through some of my dictionaries and post why your definition of anarchy is the least accepted one.)

What is the problem? I would rather face one adversary than a mob of coersionists. I can not imagine advocating the opposite.

Well, again, it is human nature that taints the experiment. The notion "There is safety in numbers" means that individuals will, not just eventually, but pretty much instantly, 'mob up'.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

From what I gather, after many moons of haggling back and forth, you have finally stepped up and advanced your side of the discussion on to a different level. This seems like a break-through of yours, almost a concession:

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Jan 3 2007, 09:42 PM)

I suppose my point is that there is no escape from coersion.

We agree. Let us look at things in terms of inevitable control and its efficiency.

What then, after we decide to shun utopia?

[Charles Anthony]

Dear FleaBag,

No, I am afraid of your ability to self-control.

You can protect yourself against that. Are you afraid of that responsibility or do you just prefer shirking it?

I would rather have the police watch over both of us that have to trust (or, mistrust and maintain eternal vigilance over) you.

I do not trust other people's police. Why do you?

On a somewhat related note: I can not remember the name of the crook-arsonist-fire-fighter but there was a guy in the U.S.A. who became a fire-fighter specifically because he liked setting fires. As a fire-fighter, he learned how fires were investigated and he learned the bureaucracy. He was successful being paid to put out fires that he set himself -- very sick and twisted -- for a long time.

People that could be trusted with an absence of law are likely 1 per 10,000,000.

I do not agree with that but even if you are right, that is not a problem. You do not have to trust people. All you need to do is permit people to share the balance of force.

Only a minority of states in the world possess nuclear arsenals. It is not sane to fear any one of them setting off a nuclear attack.

(When I have time, I'll go through some of my dictionaries and post why your definition of anarchy is the least accepted one.)

Part of me wants to say "Do not bother." but I will say "I challenge you to present a convincing argument of why I should change my label." instead.

The notion "There is safety in numbers" means that individuals will, not just eventually, but pretty much instantly, 'mob up'.

Yeah, I am sure the people in Tiannamen Square where asked "Would you like a rubber bullet with your fries?" before they were mowed down. There is no safety in numbers if an individual has good reason to fear being in a mob. The mob provides a decreased probability of individual attack. That sort of safety is ridiculously limited. What do you suggest a potential victim of a home invasion/rape does? Call the police? Call everybody in the neighborhood to come over?

Closer to home and at the risk of being perceived as disgusting, I would like to draw attention to recent events where the safety of individuals is instantly threatened: snipers and school shootings. What happens when an VampiroIndoPsycho walks onto a school campus and starts shooting? The crowd scatters. The absense of armed security guards protecting the school property lets the violence continue. The only thing that stops him is an act of individual self-defense and a balance of force.

If every single person had the right to freely bear arms, very few of us would have to bear arms. We will not see people carrying grenade launchers.

What then, after we decide to shun utopia?

Are you kidding? I would never stoop that low -- maybe for an intellectual excercise but never in practice. I prefer the safety provided by the madness of my cosmic dreams.

[Riverwind]

No, I am afraid of your ability to self-control.

You can protect yourself against that. Are you afraid of that responsibility or do you just prefer shirking it?

I prefer to get together with a few million like minded individuals, stake a claim over a piece of territory and fund a neutral police service funded via mandatory contributions from everyone living in the territory. Who are you to tell the million of us that we can't fund our police force that way?

[Charles Anthony]

Who are you to tell the million of us what we can fund our police force that way?

Someone who does not use ideas as duplicitous as "social contract" to hide acts of aggression.

[Riverwind]

Who are you to tell the million of us what we can fund our police force that way?

Someone who does not use ideas as duplicitous as "social contract" to hide acts of aggression.

Property "ownership" is just another ephemeral "social contract". We both believe that agression is sometimes necessary to protect the "social contracts" that keep humans living in relative peace with each other. The only difference the definition of the contract.

[Charles Anthony]

Property "ownership" is just another ephemeral "social contract".

At least I can stand on a pedestal and proudly say that in its most objective instance (ownership over one's body), anarchy is more concrete. Your "social contract" accepts slavery.

We both believe that agression is sometimes necessary to protect the "social contracts" that keep humans living in relative peace with each other.

On a personal note, I do not agree with the latter "keep humans living in relative peace with each other" part as a goal. Everybody has a different perspective of what they want from their fellow man -- some people are violent psychopaths. Without being as accusatory as some might prefer to be, I challenge you to describe our "social contract" if we grew up under Hitlerian Germany. What would it be? I have dug and dug and dug but I have yet to find a satisfactory reply addressing such a challenge from anybody.

My advocacy of anarchy is not because of its outcome but moreso because of its means. For instance, I would oppose stealing a penny from a millionaire even if that penny went to feed all of the starving people in the world. I am at peace with a "the ends do not justify the means" attitude and I wish more people were too. If you want to look at the application and ramifications of such an extreme perspective on specific situations, I will enjoy doing so. I confess, there are various things that anarchy can not adequately explain for myself. For example, family issues and dealing with the mentally ill to name a few.

My disdain for hiding behind "social contract" theory goes further. I firmly believe it fosters criminal behavior since it obscures obligations and barriers between individual responsibilty. In fact, it makes them morally disappear. The "social contract" goes hand in hand with "might equals right" theory. When I hear about crime, I am deeply saddened but I am never surprised.

The only difference the definition of the contract.

No. It is a difference in principle too. Your "social contract" defends anything perpetrated by a state and misrepresents the identity of the agents. Anarchy does not.