Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Your dumb anarchy questions

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 12:40:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
-How would national defense work even though the majority of first world countries have pathetic national defense?

-Why doesn't anarchy look like state socialism?

-What about poor people who can't afford health care prices under contemporary state cartels and then turn around and eat McDonalds 3x a day cus they never cared about healthcare in the first place?

-What if someone uses marijuana and calls their mom a n!gger?

-What if someone mugs you and what if they have a Defense Agency and what if that Defense Agency tells your Defense Agency to F*ck off and what if they fight because they both thought the other was bluffing and use nuclear weapons and destroy the world YOU DIDN'T THINK OF THAT - ANARCHY IS WRONG

..............................

Here is one foundational rule: Mutually beneficial long term relationships do not require external coercion to be stable.

This is not a specific rule for anarchy. It is a rule for humans. Deal with it. Anarchist societies would probably make extensive use of this rule. It is not only an end in itself, but you *might* be able to organize institutions which make short term relationships a subset of long term relationships.

But no. I'm wasting my time. You guys will just derp and totally refuse to debate on theoretical grounds. So as an additional kink in your "what if" strategy, remember anarchy is a DYNAMIC system where institutions can CHANGE if something isn't working. So if you can predict problems in anarchy, you also have to prove that there is no possible set of institutions that could deal with it. Good luck with that.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 12:56:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 12:40:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
-How would national defense work even though the majority of first world countries have pathetic national defense?

-Why doesn't anarchy look like state socialism?

-What about poor people who can't afford health care prices under contemporary state cartels and then turn around and eat McDonalds 3x a day cus they never cared about healthcare in the first place?

-What if someone uses marijuana and calls their mom a n!gger?

-What if someone mugs you and what if they have a Defense Agency and what if that Defense Agency tells your Defense Agency to F*ck off and what if they fight because they both thought the other was bluffing and use nuclear weapons and destroy the world YOU DIDN'T THINK OF THAT - ANARCHY IS WRONG

..............................

Here is one foundational rule: Mutually beneficial long term relationships do not require external coercion to be stable.

This is not a specific rule for anarchy. It is a rule for humans. Deal with it. Anarchist societies would probably make extensive use of this rule. It is not only an end in itself, but you *might* be able to organize institutions which make short term relationships a subset of long term relationships.

But no. I'm wasting my time. You guys will just derp and totally refuse to debate on theoretical grounds. So as an additional kink in your "what if" strategy, remember anarchy is a DYNAMIC system where institutions can CHANGE if something isn't working. So if you can predict problems in anarchy, you also have to prove that there is no possible set of institutions that could deal with it. Good luck with that.

Well, I don't know if this is dumb or not, but my take is, there needs to be one central arbitration system that all of the citizens buy into, which should have authority over all the other arbitration systems. Also, this arbitration system should have the most powerful "enforcing" tools.

If this system is possible under anarchy, then I have no problems with it.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 1:11:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 12:56:45 PM, Indophile wrote:

Well, I don't know if this is dumb or not,
If you have to ask...

but my take is, there needs to be one central arbitration system that all of the citizens buy into,
"Citizens"? This is a circular specification. If someone patronizes a different arbitrator they are no longer a "citizen".

which should have authority over all the other arbitration systems.
World government? Or can your arbitrator coexist with other arbitrators :3

Also, this arbitration system should have the most powerful "enforcing" tools.
WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN

If this system is possible under anarchy, then I have no problems with it.
Its possible but they probably will come up with something better.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 1:24:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 1:11:06 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/12/2011 12:56:45 PM, Indophile wrote:

Well, I don't know if this is dumb or not,
If you have to ask...

but my take is, there needs to be one central arbitration system that all of the citizens buy into,
"Citizens"? This is a circular specification. If someone patronizes a different arbitrator they are no longer a "citizen".
They may patronize whatever arbitrator they want, but there needs to be one central arbitration that supersedes all of them. Thus, they will be "citizens" of this arbitration system irrespective.

which should have authority over all the other arbitration systems.
World government? Or can your arbitrator coexist with other arbitrators :3
They can coexist. No problems. Only, the final say should rest with some system and this has to be agreed to by everybody (whether they want to or not, like the Supreme Court)

Also, this arbitration system should have the most powerful "enforcing" tools.
WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN
You see, the central arbitration system can pass judgements. But if it doesn't have the power to enforce those, then what's the use. Also, arbitration means dispute resolution. They can only enforce a judgement when there's a dispute and that too only corresponding to that dispute. So who watches the watchmen is a bit strong, I'd say. It's not like they can pass random judgements as and when they want.

If this system is possible under anarchy, then I have no problems with it.
Its possible but they probably will come up with something better.
A supreme arbitration system that has the final say in disputes between the "anarchists" is the absolute minimum. Anything better would still have this at its base.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 1:43:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But no. I'm wasting my time. You guys will just derp and totally refuse to debate on theoretical grounds. So as an additional kink in your "what if" strategy, remember anarchy is a DYNAMIC system where institutions can CHANGE if something isn't working. So if you can predict problems in anarchy, you also have to prove that there is no possible set of institutions that could deal with it. Good luck with that.:

Then couldn't the same thing be said of any system? It's all based on hypotheticals because as it stands there's not a single anarchist society on earth, except perhaps Somalia, and that's not exactly a shining example of the social/economic theory.

You can't really blame anyone for questioning it on a theoretical basis when that's all there is is theory. You can at least punch holes in statism because it has been tried is shown to be a demonstrable failure.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 1:52:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 1:43:14 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's all based on hypotheticals because as it stands there's not a single anarchist society on earth, except perhaps Somalia, and that's not exactly a shining example of the social/economic theory.
Somalia is not anarchistic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 2:12:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 12:40:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
-How would national defense work even though the majority of first world countries have pathetic national defense?
The majority of first world countries have subsidized national defense. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 2:24:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 2:12:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/12/2011 12:40:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
-How would national defense work even though the majority of first world countries have pathetic national defense?
The majority of first world countries have subsidized national defense. ^_^

Obviously free riding is a viable and stable strategy :3
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 2:29:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 1:24:03 PM, Indophile wrote:

They may patronize whatever arbitrator they want, but there needs to be one central arbitration that supersedes all of them. Thus, they will be "citizens" of this arbitration system irrespective.

You missed the point. How is a "citizen" defined? How do you know who is a "citizen" and who isn't? Especially before you set up a state...

They can coexist. No problems. Only, the final say should rest with some system and this has to be agreed to by everybody (whether they want to or not, like the Supreme Court)

No you misunderstand. Are you saying EVERYONE has to be part of the organization? Like every human being on the planet? Because having multiple governments is clearly "okay"...

You see, the central arbitration system can pass judgements. But if it doesn't have the power to enforce those, then what's the use. Also, arbitration means dispute resolution. They can only enforce a judgement when there's a dispute and that too only corresponding to that dispute. So who watches the watchmen is a bit strong, I'd say. It's not like they can pass random judgements as and when they want.

Of course they CAN. They CAN do whatever they want. You have set up an organization that cannot be challenged. That's what you WANTED.

A supreme arbitration system that has the final say in disputes between the "anarchists" is the absolute minimum. Anything better would still have this at its base.

Lol. So you didn't read the OP. See its fundamental axiom. Your supermonopolist is just deus ex machina. It has no practical merit. There is no reason for it to work. It cannot be the base of anything.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 2:39:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 2:29:12 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/12/2011 1:24:03 PM, Indophile wrote:

They may patronize whatever arbitrator they want, but there needs to be one central arbitration that supersedes all of them. Thus, they will be "citizens" of this arbitration system irrespective.

You missed the point. How is a "citizen" defined? How do you know who is a "citizen" and who isn't? Especially before you set up a state...

I'm just using the word citizen. It can be an individual. As he is an anarchist, he is obviously not a citizen of a state. They will all defer to this central arbitration scheme however, that too only in the case of disputes. This system has no other purpose save to resolve disputes.

They can coexist. No problems. Only, the final say should rest with some system and this has to be agreed to by everybody (whether they want to or not, like the Supreme Court)

No you misunderstand. Are you saying EVERYONE has to be part of the organization? Like every human being on the planet? Because having multiple governments is clearly "okay"...
Well, if there's global anarchy then everyone. It's just the system of courts that we have. Every region will have its own court and it will go up to the one overseeing court. This overseeing court will be the ultimate judge of dispute resolution. It's not like a dispute between a Korean and a Brit HAS to be settled by this one system headquartered in Tulsa or anything.

You see, the central arbitration system can pass judgements. But if it doesn't have the power to enforce those, then what's the use. Also, arbitration means dispute resolution. They can only enforce a judgement when there's a dispute and that too only corresponding to that dispute. So who watches the watchmen is a bit strong, I'd say. It's not like they can pass random judgements as and when they want.

Of course they CAN. They CAN do whatever they want. You have set up an organization that cannot be challenged. That's what you WANTED.
It cannot be challenged in case of disputes. Suppose you have a dispute with your neighbor. How will you resolve it if you both don't buy into the same arbitration system? Irish stand-down?

A supreme arbitration system that has the final say in disputes between the "anarchists" is the absolute minimum. Anything better would still have this at its base.

Lol. So you didn't read the OP. See its fundamental axiom. Your supermonopolist is just deus ex machina. It has no practical merit. There is no reason for it to work. It cannot be the base of anything.
Ok. How will you resolve disputes?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 2:52:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 2:39:29 PM, Indophile wrote:

I'm just using the word citizen. It can be an individual. As he is an anarchist, he is obviously not a citizen of a state. They will all defer to this central arbitration scheme however, that too only in the case of disputes. This system has no other purpose save to resolve disputes.

So I don't understand what you think a "citizen" is. You're saying all "citizens" have to be part of some central authority. But if you can't even define "citizen", or if your definition is too broad, then your system loses authority and centrality.

Well, if there's global anarchy then everyone. It's just the system of courts that we have. Every region will have its own court and it will go up to the one overseeing court. This overseeing court will be the ultimate judge of dispute resolution. It's not like a dispute between a Korean and a Brit HAS to be settled by this one system headquartered in Tulsa or anything.

So you're advocating global government. That is actually at odds with anarchy. I think the status quo proves that not everyone has to be under the same legal system.

Of course they CAN. They CAN do whatever they want. You have set up an organization that cannot be challenged. That's what you WANTED.
It cannot be challenged in case of disputes. Suppose you have a dispute with your neighbor. How will you resolve it if you both don't buy into the same arbitration system? Irish stand-down?

First. Total red herring. Your system has to be unchallengeable in the case of disputes. But since everyone can dispute everything, it has to be the biggest stick in the playground. This institution cannot be checked.

But if I have a dispute with my neighbor, if he is reasonable, we can come to a settlement ourselves. If he is not reasonable, our best option is to get some broader entities to accept the conflict and let them work it out. They don't have to be "part of the same system" since the fundamental rule mentioned in the OP applies.

Lol. So you didn't read the OP. See its fundamental axiom. Your supermonopolist is just deus ex machina. It has no practical merit. There is no reason for it to work. It cannot be the base of anything.
Ok. How will you resolve disputes?

Trolololololololololololololololololololololololol

Really. The whole point of the fundamental axiom is that there won't BE dispute problems. It doesn't matter how you resolve them. Maybe Exxon and Chevron flip a coin when they have a dispute. Maybe they consult the bible or draft a jury from their staffs. They could do any of those things. The point is that they'll figure out a way to preserve their mutually beneficial arrangement.

So

Dispute resolution is NOT an end in itself
Dispute resolution is not problematic once you solve underlying agency problems
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:06:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 2:52:01 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/12/2011 2:39:29 PM, Indophile wrote:

I'm just using the word citizen. It can be an individual. As he is an anarchist, he is obviously not a citizen of a state. They will all defer to this central arbitration scheme however, that too only in the case of disputes. This system has no other purpose save to resolve disputes.

So I don't understand what you think a "citizen" is. You're saying all "citizens" have to be part of some central authority. But if you can't even define "citizen", or if your definition is too broad, then your system loses authority and centrality.

Well, if there's global anarchy then everyone. It's just the system of courts that we have. Every region will have its own court and it will go up to the one overseeing court. This overseeing court will be the ultimate judge of dispute resolution. It's not like a dispute between a Korean and a Brit HAS to be settled by this one system headquartered in Tulsa or anything.

So you're advocating global government. That is actually at odds with anarchy. I think the status quo proves that not everyone has to be under the same legal system.

Of course they CAN. They CAN do whatever they want. You have set up an organization that cannot be challenged. That's what you WANTED.
It cannot be challenged in case of disputes. Suppose you have a dispute with your neighbor. How will you resolve it if you both don't buy into the same arbitration system? Irish stand-down?

First. Total red herring. Your system has to be unchallengeable in the case of disputes. But since everyone can dispute everything, it has to be the biggest stick in the playground. This institution cannot be checked.

But if I have a dispute with my neighbor, if he is reasonable, we can come to a settlement ourselves. If he is not reasonable, our best option is to get some broader entities to accept the conflict and let them work it out. They don't have to be "part of the same system" since the fundamental rule mentioned in the OP applies.

Lol. So you didn't read the OP. See its fundamental axiom. Your supermonopolist is just deus ex machina. It has no practical merit. There is no reason for it to work. It cannot be the base of anything.
Ok. How will you resolve disputes?

Trolololololololololololololololololololololololol

Really. The whole point of the fundamental axiom is that there won't BE dispute problems. It doesn't matter how you resolve them. Maybe Exxon and Chevron flip a coin when they have a dispute. Maybe they consult the bible or draft a jury from their staffs. They could do any of those things. The point is that they'll figure out a way to preserve their mutually beneficial arrangement.

So

Dispute resolution is NOT an end in itself
Dispute resolution is not problematic once you solve underlying agency problems

Okay. I'll go once again and try to be clearer.

Since it's anarchy, it's each individual as the basic unit.

You can call it government, but it's only function is dispute resolution.

Individuals have the choice of resolving their disputes any which way they wish, except by the usage of violence. As you said, they can consult the bible or draft a jury from their staffs, as long as both agree on that system. I have no issues with that.

If no resolution can be found or no system can be agreed upon (maybe party A doesn't agree to the Bible, or party B doesn't want a jury system or whatever), they just have to be satisfied with the decision of a central arbitration system (let's call it the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court however cannot overturn the judgement passed by whatever lower system (coin toss? p*ssing contest?) if both parties agreed to it. So, one can say that this is the last door one can knock if caught in a dispute. If the "losing" party still does not want to abide by the judgement, the "enforcing" arm of the Supreme Court will come into play.

The Supreme Court will not govern the individuals in any other way.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:08:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 2:24:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/12/2011 2:12:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/12/2011 12:40:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
-How would national defense work even though the majority of first world countries have pathetic national defense?
The majority of first world countries have subsidized national defense. ^_^

Obviously free riding is a viable and stable strategy :3

For democracies in a world where the US is the dominant power, yes. For anarchies in that world?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:11:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
On the plus side, after reading Indophile's proposal... Anarchy has something to look prettier than. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:12:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
*reads second iteration* make up your mind, does this court have any power or not?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:14:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:06:18 PM, Indophile wrote:

Okay. I'll go once again and try to be clearer.

Since it's anarchy, it's each individual as the basic unit.

Each individual is the basic unit in ANY system.

You can call it government, but it's only function is dispute resolution.

Individuals have the choice of resolving their disputes any which way they wish, except by the usage of violence. As you said, they can consult the bible or draft a jury from their staffs, as long as both agree on that system. I have no issues with that.

If no resolution can be found or no system can be agreed upon (maybe party A doesn't agree to the Bible, or party B doesn't want a jury system or whatever), they just have to be satisfied with the decision of a central arbitration system (let's call it the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court however cannot overturn the judgement passed by whatever lower system (coin toss? p*ssing contest?) if both parties agreed to it. So, one can say that this is the last door one can knock if caught in a dispute. If the "losing" party still does not want to abide by the judgement, the "enforcing" arm of the Supreme Court will come into play.

In anarchy, the default rule is that you fight each other if you can't come to an agreement. You want to change the default rule so that you fight the Sovereign if you can't come to an agreement. Except irl, the sovereign will simply use this rule to his advantage because he cannot be checked.

You're also just picking an "outcome" and making that your starting point. You are totally ignoring ALL social theory.

The Supreme Court will not govern the individuals in any other way.

Mana will fall from the sky and kings will be kind to kittens and birds. Hey does that pass for a political system?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:15:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:12:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
*reads second iteration* make up your mind, does this court have any power or not?

If you are talking to me, well yes it has. It has the power to enforce its judgements.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:16:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:08:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

For democracies in a world where the US is the dominant power, yes. For anarchies in that world?

I'm just saying it doesn't have to be a focal issue. The vast majority of developed countries don't really bother with it.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:18:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:15:51 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:12:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
*reads second iteration* make up your mind, does this court have any power or not?

If you are talking to me, well yes it has. It has the power to enforce its judgements.

*goes back* misread. so your proposal is just to abolish criminal law and replace it with civil?

Wat happen with murder?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:19:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:16:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:08:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

For democracies in a world where the US is the dominant power, yes. For anarchies in that world?

I'm just saying it doesn't have to be a focal issue. The vast majority of developed countries don't really bother with it.
Sure they do. They keep their froggy sounds to a mild hum that seems kinda cute to State Department officials, and tolerate bases and nukes and such. This keeps them "in" with poppa.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:21:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:14:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:06:18 PM, Indophile wrote:

Okay. I'll go once again and try to be clearer.

Since it's anarchy, it's each individual as the basic unit.

Each individual is the basic unit in ANY system.
Uh-oh.

You can call it government, but it's only function is dispute resolution.

Individuals have the choice of resolving their disputes any which way they wish, except by the usage of violence. As you said, they can consult the bible or draft a jury from their staffs, as long as both agree on that system. I have no issues with that.

If no resolution can be found or no system can be agreed upon (maybe party A doesn't agree to the Bible, or party B doesn't want a jury system or whatever), they just have to be satisfied with the decision of a central arbitration system (let's call it the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court however cannot overturn the judgement passed by whatever lower system (coin toss? p*ssing contest?) if both parties agreed to it. So, one can say that this is the last door one can knock if caught in a dispute. If the "losing" party still does not want to abide by the judgement, the "enforcing" arm of the Supreme Court will come into play.

In anarchy, the default rule is that you fight each other if you can't come to an agreement. You want to change the default rule so that you fight the Sovereign if you can't come to an agreement. Except irl, the sovereign will simply use this rule to his advantage because he cannot be checked.
Well, this bodes really well for the weaker party, fighting each other. Also, how will this Sovereign use this rule to his advantage? If all parties find out that this is what the sovereign does, would they go there? Wouldn't they decide it'd be better to bite the bullet and come to a decision between themselves? Or are you saying this sovereign will create disputes where they dont' exist and put their fingers into each individuals lives?

You're also just picking an "outcome" and making that your starting point. You are totally ignoring ALL social theory.

The Supreme Court will not govern the individuals in any other way.

Mana will fall from the sky and kings will be kind to kittens and birds. Hey does that pass for a political system?

Sounds really good to me.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:31:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:18:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:15:51 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:12:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
*reads second iteration* make up your mind, does this court have any power or not?

If you are talking to me, well yes it has. It has the power to enforce its judgements.

*goes back* misread. so your proposal is just to abolish criminal law and replace it with civil?

Wat happen with murder?

Well, under anarchy as per Sieben, the murderer and the victim's family will "fight it out" (don't ask me how)

Although with murder, isnt' it just a reason for dispute between the murderer and the victim's well-wishers?

But if the injured party is alright with the decision of whatever system they had with the murderer before, well, good for them. But if they are not, they'll have to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court.

But for civil law or criminal law to be followed, there first has to be two disputing parties, right? If no one reports the murder, and decides to kill the murderer themselves, and no one comes to know, well, what can be done?

But if they want "justice" they have to take the murderer to some arbiter. It's upto the arbiter what law he follows. If the parties don't like the arbiter, they'll have to go to the Supreme Court.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:32:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You must calculate for different types of anarchy.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:37:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Although with murder, isnt' it just a reason for dispute between the murderer and the victim's well-wishers?
"Well-wishing" does not grant standing under any principle of common law.

But for civil law or criminal law to be followed, there first has to be two disputing parties, right? If no one reports the murder, and decides to kill the murderer themselves, and no one comes to know, well, what can be done?
The State is one of the parties in criminal law. In order to have a criminal law, essentially, your "Supreme Court" has to have the power to unilaterally raise claims.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:39:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:21:31 PM, Indophile wrote:

In anarchy, the default rule is that you fight each other if you can't come to an agreement. You want to change the default rule so that you fight the Sovereign if you can't come to an agreement. Except irl, the sovereign will simply use this rule to his advantage because he cannot be checked.
Well, this bodes really well for the weaker party, fighting each other.

There are always asymmetric power relationships. Always. You cannot get rid of them. You have to build institutions AROUND them. See the OP's foundational axiom which you haven't touched or acknowledged trolololol

Also, how will this Sovereign use this rule to his advantage?
From hypothesis, he is too strong for anyone to fight. This means he knows IN ADVANCE that he will win any conflict he starts. With this knowledge he will find it advantageous to provoke conflicts which he will then auto-win.

If all parties find out that this is what the sovereign does, would they go there?
Because you said they had to. Because you said he has all the guns.

Wouldn't they decide it'd be better to bite the bullet and come to a decision between themselves?
No. Because if anyone were ever in the wrong, they could just choose to stonewall alternative dispute resolution and go to the sovereign.

Or are you saying this sovereign will create disputes where they dont' exist and put their fingers into each individuals lives?
This is an option

Sounds really good to me.

Not a response. Either you think "hur hur rainbows" is political philosophy, which it isn't, or you abandon your own "there should be a sovereign who is nice" idea.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:40:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not a response. Either you think "hur hur rainbows" is political philosophy, which it isn't, or you abandon your own "there should be a sovereign who is nice" idea.

Well, there's always "Keep killing off sovereigns until a nice one shows up."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:45:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:37:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Although with murder, isnt' it just a reason for dispute between the murderer and the victim's well-wishers?
"Well-wishing" does not grant standing under any principle of common law.
Ha ha. True. I just put that because it includes family members, employers, lovers, etc.

But for civil law or criminal law to be followed, there first has to be two disputing parties, right? If no one reports the murder, and decides to kill the murderer themselves, and no one comes to know, well, what can be done?
The State is one of the parties in criminal law. In order to have a criminal law, essentially, your "Supreme Court" has to have the power to unilaterally raise claims.
Well, but under anarchy, this State doesn't exist. It's each individual for him/herself. If those individuals care so much about murders happening and getting resolved in a way they don't like, well, too bad.

They can form a "society", where they can have their own High Court, say, raise claims unilaterally though, but it still would have to defer to the Supreme Court in case of disputes between a member of their society and an outside member.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:49:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But for civil law or criminal law to be followed, there first has to be two disputing parties, right? If no one reports the murder, and decides to kill the murderer themselves, and no one comes to know, well, what can be done?
The State is one of the parties in criminal law. In order to have a criminal law, essentially, your "Supreme Court" has to have the power to unilaterally raise claims.
Well, but under anarchy, this State doesn't exist. It's each individual for him/herself. If those individuals care so much about murders happening and getting resolved in a way they don't like, well, too bad.
Anarchists don't have to claim to be superior to anarchists though. You, on the other hand...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:59:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:49:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But for civil law or criminal law to be followed, there first has to be two disputing parties, right? If no one reports the murder, and decides to kill the murderer themselves, and no one comes to know, well, what can be done?
The State is one of the parties in criminal law. In order to have a criminal law, essentially, your "Supreme Court" has to have the power to unilaterally raise claims.
Well, but under anarchy, this State doesn't exist. It's each individual for him/herself. If those individuals care so much about murders happening and getting resolved in a way they don't like, well, too bad.
Anarchists don't have to claim to be superior to anarchists though. You, on the other hand...

Well, that's why I said "if this is possible under anarchy". I personally don't think this would be possible and anarchy is untenable. I'm open to explanations though.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 4:07:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:39:12 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:21:31 PM, Indophile wrote:

In anarchy, the default rule is that you fight each other if you can't come to an agreement. You want to change the default rule so that you fight the Sovereign if you can't come to an agreement. Except irl, the sovereign will simply use this rule to his advantage because he cannot be checked.
Well, this bodes really well for the weaker party, fighting each other.

There are always asymmetric power relationships. Always. You cannot get rid of them. You have to build institutions AROUND them. See the OP's foundational axiom which you haven't touched or acknowledged trolololol
Well, your foundational axiom is about mutually beneficial long term relationships. But disputes can happen between people who are not in any relationship, long term or otherwise.

Also, how will this Sovereign use this rule to his advantage?
From hypothesis, he is too strong for anyone to fight. This means he knows IN ADVANCE that he will win any conflict he starts. With this knowledge he will find it advantageous to provoke conflicts which he will then auto-win.
But he has no stake in the conflict. The only party that will benefit is one of the two. How will this sovereign benefit?

If all parties find out that this is what the sovereign does, would they go there?
Because you said they had to. Because you said he has all the guns.
I never said they HAD to. They can resolve it by themselves, if they so wish.

Wouldn't they decide it'd be better to bite the bullet and come to a decision between themselves?
No. Because if anyone were ever in the wrong, they could just choose to stonewall alternative dispute resolution and go to the sovereign.
And in the absence of this sovereign, they will do what? Or doesn't it matter who's wrong or right? The stronger party should always win?

Or are you saying this sovereign will create disputes where they dont' exist and put their fingers into each individuals lives?
This is an option
This will be easily found out unless the individuals are really stupid.

Sounds really good to me.

Not a response. Either you think "hur hur rainbows" is political philosophy, which it isn't, or you abandon your own "there should be a sovereign who is nice" idea.
Well, Ragnar has given a suitable response. Also, it's not like they are a permanent institution. It's just comprised of individuals and is basically under the other individuals as a group. They can change the individuals.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.