Hugo's defence of anarchy

[Riverwind]

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.

Sure it does - just in a different way. In your "social contract" someone who has money is free to rape, kill or enslave anyone that they want as long as they have the money to pay for the thugs to fend off the thugs of their victims.

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.

The proverbial red herring. I said that your social contract is nothing more than a thinly disguised excuse for violence in the name of the values you consider to be important (i.e. property rights). In pre-WW2 Germany the social contract justified violence in the name of different values (racial purity and protecting the "fatherland"). We can get into a discussion about what underlying social values are most important, however, let's dispense with the notion that your "social contract" is non-coercive and all other are. All social contracts are coercive - it is unavoidable.

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 responsibility.

Not at all. Most social contracts are exclusively about the responsibility of the individual towards society. In Japan, this social contract is almost suffocating, however, their rate of crime is a fraction of what it is elsewhere. It is no co-incidence that the crime rate in Japan has gone up as the social contract has weakened.

In fact, it makes them morally disappear. The "social contract" goes hand in hand with "might equals right" theory.

I would say the reverse is true. Pure anarchism is all about might equals right where anyone with enough economic power to purchase the thugs necessary to impose their will on others is free to do so. You must remember that the modern democratic state evolved because the average person wanted to protect themselves from the predations of the wealthy elite.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

If every single person had the right to freely bear arms, very few of us would have to bear arms.

The USA is a glaring exmaple of how this idea is not true. Look at the 'lawless' counties (Hugo even used one as an example of modern day anarchism) in Africa, Somalia and Sudan...no guns, you say? Rubbish. There is pretty much an equal amount, whether per capita or by volume, everywhere in the world, regardless of the prevalent ideology. Supposedly Canada has more guns per capita than the USA.

Weapons are the world's biggest business, and they will be under state control or 'anarchy'. Usually, though, the less the state control, the more the weapons get used.

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.

Coming. I understand what you mean, because the few I went through are all on your side, as it were, but there was one I am still looking for. The definition was something like : 'The notion of overthrowing gov't, established order, etc. and advocating nothing in it's place'". Again, I shall play for time until I can look it up, as I feel it is a valid distinction.

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.

Is that the most common result? No, not even societies that advocate the right to bear arms. Actually, not even close. The right to bear arms is actually used for the wrong reasons, over the 'right reasons', by an exponential factor.

The "social contract" goes hand in hand with "might equals right" theory.

Anarchy abolishes everything but.

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Jan 5 2007, 05:56 AM)

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.

Having a stong, healthy Messiah Complex like I do helps, too.

[Charles Anthony]

Dear TheLoneFlea,

If every single person had the right to freely bear arms, very few of us would have to bear arms.

The USA is a glaring exmaple of how this idea is not true.

No, it is not. Most jurisdictions outlaw the concealment of weapons and place restrictions on others. When you are ready to permit patrolling private security guards on turrets to hoist the same weapons as used routinely by your state, I will consider it.

Look at the 'lawless' counties (Hugo even used one as an example of modern day anarchism) in Africa, Somalia and Sudan...no guns, you say? Rubbish.

Please. You follow world affairs better than I do. What foreign-state armed forces have crossed the Somalia-Ethiopian border and are now in Somalia??

Ethiopia opens 'war' on Somalia militia

by Mohamed Olad Hassan

MOGADISHU, Somalia - Ethiopia sent fighter jets into Somalia and bombed several towns Sunday in a dramatic attack on Somalia's powerful Islamic movement, and Ethiopia's prime minister said his country had been "forced to enter a war."

It was the first time Ethiopia acknowledged its troops were fighting in support of Somalia's U.N.-backed interim government even though witnesses had been reporting their presence for weeks in an escalating battle that threatens to engulf the Horn of Africa region.

Associated Press

Maybe the agents of these states were just delivering Christmas presents. What do you think? I think you could do better.

Weapons are the world's biggest business, and they will be under state control or 'anarchy'. Usually, though, the less the state control, the more the weapons get used.

Weapons are the world's biggest business of states and states are the biggest users of weapons. You are not being serious. Might the weapons of which you speak be the same type of weapons permitted by Americans to carry walking down the street? You are mixing apples and oranges in a vegetable soup.

but there was one I am still looking for. The definition was something like : 'The notion of overthrowing gov't, established order, etc. and advocating nothing in it's place'". Again, I shall play for time until I can look it up, as I feel it is a valid distinction.

I suggest you look in some dictionary printed by some hoity-toity toppy-nosed state university publishing company. You might find it there.

Is that the most common result? No, not even societies that advocate the right to bear arms. Actually, not even close. The right to bear arms is actually used for the wrong reasons, over the 'right reasons', by an exponential factor.

I am not certain of what you mean. What are YOU saying would be the most common mob response to a raging lone gunman?

Anarchy abolishes everything but.

I will go along with that for now because I will attempt to demolish your opposition to anarchy from a different angle without having to deny it. Here I go:

I challenge you to explain why abolishing everything but "might equals right" is a problem.

I prefer the safety provided by the madness of my cosmic dreams.

Having a stong, healthy Messiah Complex like I do helps, too.

I should try that. Do you think I fit the profile?

In your "social contract" someone who has money is free to rape, kill or enslave anyone that they want as long as they have the money to pay for the thugs to fend off the thugs of their victims.

How is that different from what we live now? At least the sky is not going to fall under anarchy -- or will it?

If that is your objection to anarchy, there are a few online discussion groups that might help with some bright ideas on how to cope.

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.

The proverbial red herring.

I am now starting to think that Hugo had a lot of patience.

We can get into a discussion about what underlying social values are most important, however, let's dispense with the notion that your "social contract" is non-coercive and all other are. All social contracts are coercive - it is unavoidable.

The salient feature of anarchy is non-aggression which is related but slightly different. You know that.

I am tired of the circular "non-existent social contract" defense to hide state crime. Thus, I will destroy it with this challenge:

Since you brought them up as objectionable results of anarchy, I want you to explain why "rape, kill or enslave anyone" are wrong?

[Riverwind]

The salient feature of anarchy is non-aggression which is related but slightly different. You know that.

Just like you know there is huge difference between a police force operating on behalf of a state and criminal gang. However, you choose treat the two as synonymous in your arguments against the state.

Since you brought them up as objectionable results of anarchy, I want you to explain why "rape, kill or enslave anyone" are wrong?

In the abstract sense nothing is right or wrong unless it is judged against a set of values. Humans spend a lot of time trying to define a set of values that they all can agree on, however, there is no such thing as a set of values which represent absolute 'truths'. In our society today our shared set of values agrees that rape and enslavement are always wrong and that killing is sometimes wrong. Societies in the past and the future had/will have a different set of values.

Anarchism defines a set of values and then attempts to build a political and economic system on those values. It is an interesting academic exercise, however, most people simply do not agree with the anarchist value system. Now it is possible that Anarchists will attract enough of a following that they would be able to impose thier values on the remaining population, however, that kind of coersion contradicts the Anarchists value system.

The non-cohersion contradiction in Anarchism makes it completely impractical. That is why any society that went through a period of Anarchism inevitably returned to statism. You could look at it as Darwinian evolution applied to social models where Anarchism is a model that could not stand the test of time. Hugo loved to blame the collapse of Anarchist societies on predatory statist neighbors, however, the fact that the Anarchist societies could not defend themselves against predatory neighbors is evidence of the inherent weakness in the Anarchist social model.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

"I challenge you to present a convincing argument of why I should change my label."

Very well. All of the dictionaries I have (which number 7, I think, ranging in dates from 1948-1997) contain 2 definitions for 'Anarchy', and 'anarchist. The one I was referring to is the "Wesbster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" (1983) under 'Anarchist' (pg53) #2.

a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed"

Now, to be fair, all of the dictionaries also include your definition of the abolition of gov't and cooperation in it's stead. So, there are really two definitions, with one truly in 'abasement'. The problem is, the one with the nasty stigma attached to it is the more recognizable one, whereas you have to explain yours.

There have been other names that have been changed because they shared a meaning with something else, and that something else was unpalatable. Canola oil used to be called 'Rapeseed oil' (and on the Farm Report on the radio, the commodity was called 'Rape') when I was a kid. No one really wants to tell anyone else over a beer that they specialize in 'Rape'.

http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/farming/stock...rape/index.html

Due to the negative connotation of the word, (and partly due to the fact that canola is a genetic modification) the name got changed. Which is much of what I feel about anarchy. Perhaps if you were a 'type 2 anarchist', or a 'libby', or something, there would be an easier distinction made.

[Charles Anthony]

The salient feature of anarchy is non-aggression which is related but slightly different. You know that.

Just like you know there is huge difference between a police force operating on behalf of a state and criminal gang. However, you choose treat the two as synonymous in your arguments against the state.

No. You are spinning.

Is the accusation against anarchy that all people who defend themselves are de facto criminal????

Are you attacking people who hire security guards by labelling them automatically as forming a criminal gang???

The "state" police is the biggest gang. It monopolizes violence by pretending to have consent with a circular argument based on a non-existent "social contract" to which we must infer. I doubt that criminal gangs are out to fool people into thinking they have a God-given right.

In the abstract sense nothing is right or wrong unless it is judged against a set of values.

A set of values? I can work with that.

In our society today our shared set of values agrees that rape and enslavement are always wrong

Why would any member of "our society" agree with that?

It is an interesting academic exercise, however, most people simply do not agree with the anarchist value system.

Big deal. Rapists and slave-drivers may not agree with it either.

You could look at it as Darwinian evolution applied to social models where Anarchism is a model that could not stand the test of time.

I could also say that eventually humans develop the intelligence to genetically engineer biology to counter the wild world of Darwin. Furthermore, I could say that humans develop a conscience to decide when it is right or wrong to play with biology.

Would you suggest that biologists be told to stop messing with evolution?

Hugo loved to blame the collapse of Anarchist societies on predatory statist neighbors, however, the fact that the Anarchist societies could not defend themselves against predatory neighbors is evidence of the inherent weakness in the Anarchist social model.

Hugo was right and you are wrong. The predatory neighbors do not prove that the society was inherent unstable.

If a meteor comes crashing down to wipe people out, would you say that anarchy is wrong because it can not counter the meteor?

If a herd of elephants tramples or a plague of locusts wipes everybody out, would you say that anarchy is wrong?

Your counter argument says nothing more than people can be evil.

Dear ThelBag,

The problem is, the one with the nasty stigma attached to it is the more recognizable one, whereas you have to explain yours.

I understand that it sets myself up for prejudice and misunderstanding. [Hell, I may even be targetted by "state" police and wisked away in the night! Maybe I should join the PN008E fan club to learn how to defend myself.] Seriously, I would like to make an analogy: if I was Jewish, would you ask me to change how I dress so that I was not targeted by Nazis? Maybe and maybe not. It all depends on where we are and who else is around us.

I have come across several so-called "anarchists" and many of them are nothing more than communists or socialists or just plain selfish lazy people. Their appeal to anarchy seems to be a neurotic hodge-podge confusion of the following features:

- lazy

- honestly observing that communism is tyrannical

- having a bizarre reflex of owning your neighbor

- not wanting to be responsible for one's own property

These are the people who truly give anarchy a very bad bad name in my mind. I despise them immensely and they despise me. Nevertheless, I enjoy participating in their "anarchist" discussion groups despite myself being generally unwelcome.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Would you suggest that biologists be told to stop messing with evolution?

Yes, and pronto. I don't like the idea of messing around with that which got us here in the first place. It is for this reason that I lean towards 'environmentalism'. People (maybe not all) could survive without 'big business', but not without the environment. A while ago, (and in some places, even into this century) everything some people needed to live was free for the taking.

[Riverwind]

Is the accusation against anarchy that all people who defend themselves are de facto criminal????

The accusation is anarchism must be coercive because it requires the use of force to impose anarchist values on people who disagree with anarchist values. For example, what happens in an anarchist society when a group of people, who are the overwhelming majority of people living in a geographic area, decide that they want to form a state with a gov't funded by mandatory taxes. Who will stop them from them coercing the few anarchists that are trapped within the borders of the new state? Will anarchists from surrounding areas band together and start a holy crusade against the evil 'statists'? If they did and won then why would they be any different than the statists who created the state an imposed their values on the few non-statists?

Humans that work together in groups are stronger than individuals - this is a fact of nature. This reality also leads directly to the formation of states. Any anarchist society would be constantly at war with the mini states that would spontaneously emerge. Eventually these mini states would start to fight with each other and eventually merge into larger states.

It is an interesting academic exercise, however, most people simply do not agree with the anarchist value system.

Big deal. Rapists and slave-drivers may not agree with it either.

We have no problems coercing people who disagree with our collective values - anarchists claim that coercion is wrong and therefore cannot coerce people that disagree. That is the fundamental contradiction of anarchism.

Would you suggest that biologists be told to stop messing with evolution?

Darwinism is about the survival - not the the method. If messing with genetics improves survival then that is how we will evolve. If messing with genetics creates problems that reduces survival rates then we evolve into a species that does not mess with genetics.

If a meteor comes crashing down to wipe people out, would you say that anarchy is wrong because it can not counter the meteor?

Yes, if a falling meteor was a predictable, repeating event that affected all societies and the anarchist model was one of social models that was rendered extinct as a result.

Your counter argument says nothing more than people can be evil.

That is the argument. Many people are evil - states exists to protect people from the evil of others. Anarchism offers no protection to people who cannot afford it so they have no choice but to band together and create a state.

[Charles Anthony]

Congratulations.

In our society today our shared set of values agrees that rape and enslavement are always wrong

Why would any member of "our society" agree with that?

Unanswered.

You are avoiding a trap that can expose a contradiction in your argument against anarchy. That is fine. My next trap will again be in bold text and will again be derived from one of your statements.

In the meantime:

The accusation is anarchism must be coercive because it requires the use of force to impose anarchist values on people who disagree with anarchist value.

Your application of anarchist theory to a possible real-life example is erroneous and thus, no counter-argument at all. I trust that it is an unintentional mistake. In your example, nobody will stop the evil statists. The trapped anarchists will either leave the property geographic area or sell themselves off into servitude to your evil statists.

Would you suggest that biologists be told to stop messing with evolution?

Darwinism is about the survival - not the the method. If messing with genetics improves survival then that is how we will evolve. If messing with genetics creates problems that reduces survival rates then we evolve into a species that does not mess with genetics.

You have just described Darwinism as depending on survival and the method is genetic variation -- they go hand in hand. Biologists work to improve our odds at survival. Thus, my question to your original analogy still stands.

Your counter argument says nothing more than people can be evil.

That is the argument.

If your ascertion that "people can be evil" is the argument against anarchy, I thank you for bringing us even closer.

Many people are evil - states exists to protect people from the evil of others. Anarchism offers no protection to people who cannot afford it so they have no choice but to band together and create a state.

I present you with a second trap challenge: What do you mean by evil?

Anarchism offers no protection to people who cannot afford it so they have no choice but to band together and create a state.

That is incorrect and if you answer the above question, I believe the contradiction in your argument against anarchism will be exposed.

Dear FleaBag,

You have avoided a trap derived from one of your statements as well by not responding to:

Anarchy abolishes everything but.

I will go along with that for now because I will attempt to demolish your opposition to anarchy from a different angle without having to deny it. Here I go:

I challenge you to explain why abolishing everything but "might equals right" is a problem.

I wish to extend my congratulations to you also.

Neverthless,

I don't like the idea of messing around with that which got us here in the first place.

I see nothing wrong with that, per se.

Even if I did agree with you, I would suggest that you will never stop cloning technology nor genetic engineered crops nor modern medicine nor the development of vaccines nor cough syrup nor snake-oil nor band-aids nor any multitude of things that people do to keep themselves here in the first place. You would be expecting an impossible feat comparable to promoting World Peace or Happiness or Liberty.

It is for this reason that I lean towards 'environmentalism'. People (maybe not all) could survive without 'big business', but not without the environment.

In a discussion on the defense/offense of anarchy, is it just a co-incidence that you single out "big business" while defending the environment?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

You have avoided a trap derived from one of your statements as well by not responding to:

QUOTE(Charles Anthony @ Jan 6 2007, 01:05 PM)

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Jan 5 2007, 10:45 PM)

Anarchy abolishes everything but.

I will go along with that for now because I will attempt to demolish your opposition to anarchy from a different angle without having to deny it. Here I go:

I challenge you to explain why abolishing everything but "might equals right" is a problem.

I wish to extend my congratulations to you also.

Sorry old boy, I certainly didn't mean to avoid this, but lately I have been pressed for time.

It's the loonies. No shortage of them, and I have no desire to dodge roving bands of maurauders and drugged out zombies while seeking my daily bread. In fact, I do too much of it at my place of work already.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charleas Anthony,

In a discussion on the defense/offense of anarchy, is it just a co-incidence that you single out "big business" while defending the environment?

Somewhat. I could have said 'cars', or somesuch, but really I was referring to 'corporate culture', the idolatry of money and power, and the notion that 'the market' will solve all problems.

[Charles Anthony]

I could have said 'cars', or somesuch,

You could have also said "government" too.

I find that singling out "corporate culture" to be ironic in an objection to anarchy because "corporate culture" is enhanced and propped up by states and states are enhanced by "big business" which is enhanced by states which are enhanced by "money and power" which are enhanced by states.

I have a question for the environmentalist in you. What would you do differently if you owned the entire world?

I am describing human nature. No system can escape the reality that humans with power and wealth will always seek to use that wealth to give them power over others.

No system can escape it but escaping what people seek is not a problem. Preventing violence is a problem. Anarchy allows poor people a chance to defend themselves against violence.

Democracy is a system that put limits on the powers of the wealthy

Wrong. Democracy leaves the wealthy with fewer people to buy.

Relative to anarchy, there would be less limits in a democracy.

Whenever people pay for services that benefit all people living in a region then they will be forced to deal with the freeloader problem.

Freeloading is a lame excuse for a systemic problem.

Once people realize the need for a service where mandatory contributions are required you will see that people will quickly recognize the need for the gov't.

This is where you continue to go in the wrong direction. The single-brand service is not mandatory.

Without state-monopolized tax-funded policing, private services can only be profitable by catering to the masses. That is the beginning of how the poor will over-power the kleptocrats.

Charles Anthony,

What?? I am not Dear to you anymore??? What did I do?? What did I do??

I think you misunderstood. How is 'will' enforced (whether through gov't or private police) without the 'use of force' (read: coersion)?

I think I am still misunderstanding because the answer seems more than obvious: "will" is not enforced. Likewise, "your desire to listen to pop music" is not enforced.

In the past, the feudal lords simply used a combination of brute force and brainwashing (e.g. divine right of kings) to protect their stuff.

Today, anarchists argue and use persuasion.

Coersionists continue to use brute force and obligate people to go to school.

So you could say that all taxes paid by the wealthy are simply a way of paying off would be thieves.

With that, people rationalize and adopt theft as a morally acceptable behavior.

Anarchism simply re-brands feudalism where the 'haves' will rely on a private police force instead of men at arms and the divine church of absolute property rights provides the brainwashing.

With your logic, democracy re-brands your feudalism too.

In anarchy, the "have nots" will at least have a second-tiered police force and justice system whereas now, they have absolutely nothing.

I don't think any anarchist society is stable because the first thing humans do when they get together in groups is form a gov't. Stopping that would require heavy duty brainwashing or force.

No. Humans will engage in trade before they run to a government for help.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Jan 24 2007, 08:58 PM)

Charles Anthony,

What?? I am not Dear to you anymore??? What did I do?? What did I do??

You fell victim to the unfortunate circumstance of being second in my letter of address to Riverwind. I may have used 'Dear so-and so' more than once in the same post in the past, but rarely and I try not to do it anymore. Just doesn't seem...'proper'.

What would you do differently if you owned the entire world?

Well, that would depend on how you define 'ownership'. I'd need 'godlike powers' to enforce my will, I suppose, so I would likely peek up a lot more dresses.

[Charles Anthony]

I'd need 'godlike powers' to enforce my will,

No. You would only need a god-like sense of humor as I have. It works every time for me.

so I would likely peek up a lot more dresses.

In that case, I would follow you -- so long as you are not looking to score any circle-A's on the tip of your tongue.

[Wilber]

Anarchy is like Communism. It might look good in theory but as soon as humans become involved, it all goes to hell.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Wilber,

Anarchy is like Communism. It might look good in theory but as soon as humans become involved, it all goes to hell.

Indeed, and well said. I had suggested to Charles Anthony (in a roundabout way) that the greatest dilemna in politics is "Where does one go when one abandons Utopia?" Does one then shoot for the very middle?

[Riverwind]

Anarchy is like Communism. It might look good in theory but as soon as humans become involved, it all goes to hell.

It is interesting to note how the Iraqis and Afghanis have greeted the collapse of their oppressive states. Their mutual desire to profit more by trading with each other without the interference of a coersive gov't has not produced an anarchist utopia - quite the opposite from all reports. The biggest problems in Iraq right now are caused by the private police forces that are running amok.

[Wilber]

Anarchy is like Communism. It might look good in theory but as soon as humans become involved, it all goes to hell.

It is interesting to note how the Iraqis and Afghanis have greeted the collapse of their oppressive states. Their mutual desire to profit more by trading with each other without the interference of a coersive gov't has not produced an anarchist utopia - quite the opposite from all reports. The biggest problems in Iraq right now are caused by the private police forces that are running amok.

Exactly, forget the theory when reality is staring you in the face.

[Charles Anthony]

Exactly, forget the theory when reality is staring you in the face.

Agreed and the reality is that there are agents of coercive foreign countries occupying in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The biggest problems in Iraq right now are caused by the private police forces that are running amok.

-- which is a direct result of the continued presence of foreign states.

expropriated from the

Teaching respect for the law -- A quandary of principle thread

- Do you feel that stopping at a red light is a violation of your freedom (i.e. wrong).

Of course NOT because I do not own the road in this circumstance.

- If you were bent on taking part in an honour killing, and the "victim", due to cultural circumstances, does not wish to bring her family more "shame" by informing the authorities, and the state intervenes to stop this act, would yo consider it a violation of YOUR freedom.

Of course NOT because I do not own the "victim" in this circumstance.

- If you choose to say, sell explosives or RPG's out of the back of your car to the higgest bidder, and the state intervenes in your commercial transactions, is that wrong?

It depends where the transaction occurs.

If it occurs on my property, it is a violation of my freedom.

What you are over-looking is the right to own property and that includes a patch of land.

States only exist because they are able to confiscate property and I deny anybody the right to steal.

It seems we always claim we don't need the government......until our house is on fire, or our roads are no longer drivable, or our life is in danger, or we were treated unfairly. In other words, when the times are good, fegetabouhdem' , but when they turn sour, we come whimpering back for more.

Wrong. I always claim we do not need government.

What we need are fire protection services, road repair, life savers and lawyers.

[marcinmoka]

QUOTE(marcinmoka @ May 2 2007, 10:04 AM) *

- If you choose to say, sell explosives or RPG's out of the back of your car to the higgest bidder, and the state intervenes in your commercial transactions, is that wrong?

It depends where the transaction occurs.

If it occurs on my property, it is a violation of my freedom.

And this I am afraid to say that this is a dangerous mentality, and one which is a legitimate threat to society, and should be dealt with. RPG's are not commodities like frying pans, or jeans. While some groups may be outrages at low cut jeans, RPG's will no doubt add exponentially to public instability and unrest (i.e. the chaos we refered to earlier).

I do not own the "victim" in this circumstance

Is there any circumstance in which you do own the victim?

I always claim we do not need government.

And if our nation is attacked by a hostile force? Some would no doubt contribute to a private army, but others would not. What would be the the plan of contingency.

[Charles Anthony]

- If you choose to say, sell explosives or RPG's out of the back of your car to the higgest bidder, and the state intervenes in your commercial transactions, is that wrong?

It depends where the transaction occurs.

If it occurs on my property, it is a violation of my freedom.

And this I am afraid to say that this is a dangerous mentality, and one which is a legitimate threat to society, and should be dealt with. RPG's are not commodities like frying pans, or jeans. While some groups may be outrages at low cut jeans, RPG's will no doubt add exponentially to public instability and unrest (i.e. the chaos we refered to earlier).

You are correct. Owning or maintaining or using or selling rocket-propelled grenades are all exceedingly expensive compared to frying pans or jeans.

You are wrong in attributing that to a threat to society. Not many people have a use for them nor do many people have the budget for them. It is no wonder at all that agents of States are the ones who deal with rocket-propelled grenades.

I do not own the "victim" in this circumstance

Is there any circumstance in which you do own the victim?

-- only if the victim is myself.

I always claim we do not need government.

And if our nation is attacked by a hostile force? Some would no doubt contribute to a private army, but others would not. What would be the the plan of contingency.

Like what? Two passenger planes flying into two towers? Yeah, I am quite sure the government will be able to easily fend off such a hostile force.

Your fear of a "hostile force" must be balanced with the concept that occupying a large population and being productive in the long run do not go hand in hand. I will assume that you understand the concept of mutual trade advantage. War is not cheap.

If you enjoyed sugar and cream in your coffee, you will not go down to South America to subjugate the farmers. You will trade your domestic dairy products.

This is what you are missing: a concept of private ownership of all material goods and land. That is anarchy and that is what I advocate. If all land and all goods are privately owned, each individual will have the need and thus, the incentive to:

- engage in mutually beneficial commercial trade

- protect one's own property

- contract out services that one can not supply on one's own

Not many people -- except for statesmen -- will do business with somebody who carries a grenade. It will be very difficult for an aggressive person to survive with other people.

[marcinmoka]

You are wrong in attributing that to a threat to society. Not many people have a use for them nor do many people have the budget for them.

But some do. Perhaps it is since you come from Quebec, whereas I have family in regions where private individuals do find it advantageous to acquire RPG's to eliminate competitors, and in many regions of the world, it is cheaper than hiring a lawyer.

In fact, I do re-call an instance in Quebec. During the "Ma Boucher" H.A. trial, where there was a case of R.P.G fire against a federal courthouse in an attempt to kill a witness.

Like what?

The Cold War. Sure, they never attacked. But that was because of this state provisioned deterrent force we had in place.

I will assume that you understand the concept of mutual trade advantage. War is not cheap.

I agree, and would very much prefer the world worked as such. It would be of benefit to everyone. However, people do not always act rationally. And this is quite a common occurrence. And while an "anarchistic" model would function well in Shangri-La or what have you, it is severely flawed when applied to the real world because it fails to capture the countless nuances that make the world as it truly is.

If all land and all goods are privately owned, each individual will have the need and thus, the incentive to:

- engage in mutually beneficial commercial trade

- protect one's own property

- contract out services that one can not supply on one's own

Very rational an approach, I must say. But I have one more question for you:

Do people always act rationally?

* I have always wondered why people lump(ed) communism and anarchy together, seeing as they operate on completely dichotic set of principles. But I finally see why.......their reliance on a non-attainable ideal.

[Charles Anthony]

But some do. Perhaps it is since you come from Quebec,

Perhaps...

...but this:

whereas I have family in regions where private individuals do find it advantageous to acquire RPG's to eliminate competitors, and in many regions of the world, it is cheaper than hiring a lawyer.

is not a serious argument.

One example here or one example there does not sway me. There are probably zillions of situations where people had to defend themselves in guerilla warfare and a rocket propelled grenade was their key to freedom.

In fact, I do re-call an instance in Quebec. During the "Ma Boucher" H.A. trial, where there was a case of R.P.G fire against a federal courthouse in an attempt to kill a witness.

Irrelevent. Kitchen knives have been used as assault weapons, self-defense weapons and culinary implements of destruction. Following your logic, I have no idea what I should do with a kitchen knife.

The Cold War. Sure, they never attacked. But that was because of this state provisioned deterrent force we had in place.

So? What is your argument?

However, people do not always act rationally. And this is quite a common occurrence. And while an "anarchistic" model would function well in Shangri-La or what have you, it is severely flawed when applied to the real world because it fails to capture the countless nuances that make the world as it truly is.

Quite the contrary. Once you step outside of the borders of your State, your world is anarchist.

Do people always act rationally?

Mu. I do not think you realize that your question spins around depending exclusively on how you choose to define your terms. What does "rationally" mean?

Given that you use the Coase Theorem to justify coercion, why would you even care?

Cut-To-The-Chase Answer: everybody acts rationally -- except for the comatose. You can not impose YOUR subjective value system on an other hypothetically irrational person.

* I have always wondered why people lump(ed) communism and anarchy together, seeing as they operate on completely dichotic set of principles. But I finally see why.......their reliance on a non-attainable ideal.

I have always wondered why that should be a concern.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Kitchen knives have been used as assault weapons, self-defense weapons and culinary implements of destruction. Following your logic, I have no idea what I should do with a kitchen knife.

Then you need to read my new self-help book, "Stab Your Way To Financial Success."

Cut-To-The-Chase Answer: everybody acts rationally -- except for the comatose.

Not true.

You can not impose YOUR subjective value system on an other hypothetically irrational person

But the hypothetically irrational person will seek to impose their values on you. How is that to be defended against, save from the use of force and a 're-distribution of individual rights' (by the one with the force to do so)?

If all land and all goods are privately owned, each individual will have the need and thus, the incentive to:

- engage in mutually beneficial commercial trade

Not so, they seek to have individually beneficial trade, and most of the time accept that they cannot have it, unless they wield the force to make it so. Look to the United Fruit Corporation if you don't believe it.

- protect one's own property

- contract out services that one can not supply on one's own

Not many people -- except for statesmen -- will do business with somebody who carries a grenade. It will be very difficult for an aggressive person to survive with other people

They simply move their assets to 'off-shore' holdings, and have countless others who desire wealth above all begging to do business with them.

[Charles Anthony]

But the hypothetically irrational person will seek to impose their values on you. How is that to be defended against, save from the use of force and a 're-distribution of individual rights' (by the one with the force to do so)?

You are getting apples and oranges mixed up.

I am saying that the concept of "rational" is subjective. One person (i.e., The Final Decider Of All Things Rational) can not conclude somebody's actions as being irrational without imposing a subjective judgment.

Evaluating whether somebody is acting rationally or not is the same as investigating "Do people always act they-way-I-think-they-should act?"

Not so, they seek to have individually beneficial trade, and most of the time accept that they cannot have it, unless they wield the force to make it so. Look to the United Fruit Corporation if you don't believe it.

That company's success depended on corrupt third world governments and I genuinely want that sort of thing to stop. I am not condemning local governments and defending foreign governments.

They simply move their assets to 'off-shore' holdings, and have countless others who desire wealth above all begging to do business with them.

I am not defending ANY governments.