Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions for anarchists.

regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 12:36:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In several threads anarchism is being discussed. I have a bunch of questions for anyone, capitalist or socialist, that proposes anarchism:

1. How should conflicts between individuals be solved? By the use of force, or by the use of some sort of system of arbitration?

2. If there should be an arbitration system, should the arbitration use a system of rules of arbitrations, or should the rulings be arbitrary?

3. If there should be rules, how should the rules be decided?

4. If there should be an arbitration system, how should the arbitrations be enforced?

My answers are:

1. Arbitration.
2. Rules.
3. Democratically.
4. I'm going to strategically wait with the answer to this until I get answers from anarchists. ;-)
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 11:01:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I've always wondered whether or not anarchists prefer dystopian existences, or if that is just movie hullabaloo.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:46:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 12:36:27 AM, regebro wrote:
1. How should conflicts between individuals be solved? By the use of force, or by the use of some sort of system of arbitration?

http://www.debate.org...
Neither. Individuals would consent to have their disputes resolved by DRO's.

2. If there should be an arbitration system, should the arbitration use a system of rules of arbitrations, or should the rulings be arbitrary?

There shouldn't be a public arbitrary system. http://www.debate.org...

Rulings should be arbitrary, IMO. Objective liability systems get complicated and stupid. For example, in Texas, if you are backing your car out and there is an accident, it is automatically your fault, even if the accident was due to someone who was trying to "beat the train", in a figurative sense.

3. If there should be rules, how should the rules be decided?

There shouldn't be arbitrary rules. (from above)

No decision is beneficial, so it really matters not whether a king or a people determine them.

4. If there should be an arbitration system, how should the arbitrations be enforced?

I couldn't get an answer out of Rezzealaux.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:07:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:46:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/12/2009 12:36:27 AM, regebro wrote:
1. How should conflicts between individuals be solved? By the use of force, or by the use of some sort of system of arbitration?

http://www.debate.org...
Neither. Individuals would consent to have their disputes resolved by DRO's.

DRO is arbitration. Your answer is arbitration.

2. If there should be an arbitration system, should the arbitration use a system of rules of arbitrations, or should the rulings be arbitrary?

There shouldn't be a public arbitrary system. http://www.debate.org...

You answered arbitration, hence you must answer this question.

Rulings should be arbitrary, IMO. Objective liability systems get complicated and stupid. For example, in Texas, if you are backing your car out and there is an accident, it is automatically your fault, even if the accident was due to someone who was trying to "beat the train", in a figurative sense.

That means you want arbitrary rulings, meaning that there is no law, no predictability in conflicts. That means each you would go to conflict every time, even though you know you are in the wrong, as you may win, because rulings are practically arbitrary. Also, you would chose a DRO that is filled with your friends, because they would be guaranteed to rule for you, since they are in no way bound to any rules.

If you can't trust the DRO's, and without rules, you can't, people would not be inclined to use the DRO's. They would solve conflicts directly, with violence.

In practice, your answer to 1+2 is "People should solve conflicts with violence", because that's what your answer entails.

4. If there should be an arbitration system, how should the arbitrations be enforced?

I couldn't get an answer out of Rezzealaux.

Of course you couldn't. He doesn't have an answer. There is only one answer, and that is some sort of police force with a monopoly on violence. And that means a state. And he doesn't want one. So he is not going to answer, as answering would force him to admit that he was wrong.

He'll get there, but not this year. :)
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:43:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:07:32 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:46:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/12/2009 12:36:27 AM, regebro wrote:
Rulings should be arbitrary, IMO. Objective liability systems get complicated and stupid. For example, in Texas, if you are backing your car out and there is an accident, it is automatically your fault, even if the accident was due to someone who was trying to "beat the train", in a figurative sense.

That means you want arbitrary rulings, meaning that there is no law, no predictability in conflicts. That means each you would go to conflict every time, even though you know you are in the wrong, as you may win, because rulings are practically arbitrary.

Not necessarily (and even if this were so, it wouldn't be a problem). Because people would actually have to pay court fees, this would be discouraged. Frivolous lawsuits thrive under YOUR system.

Also, you would chose [sic] a DRO that is filled with your friends, because they would be guaranteed to rule for you, since they are in no way bound to any rules.

You missed the whole "would agree to" part.

If you can't trust the DRO's, and without rules, you can't, people would not be inclined to use the DRO's. They would solve conflicts directly, with violence.

In that regard, is the court system not violence as well?

In practice, your answer to 1+2 is "People should solve conflicts with violence", because that's what your answer entails.

Name calling, much. I'm being a happy Devil's Advocate. You should be well-aware that that was not "my answer".

Before we proceed, define violence.

4. If there should be an arbitration system, how should the arbitrations be enforced?

I couldn't get an answer out of Rezzealaux.

Of course you couldn't. He doesn't have an answer. There is only one answer, and that is some sort of police force with a monopoly on violence. And that means a state. And he doesn't want one. So he is not going to answer, as answering would force him to admit that he was wrong.

He'll get there, but not this year. :)

Straw-man claim.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 8:45:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:43:56 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/12/2009 3:07:32 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:46:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/12/2009 12:36:27 AM, regebro wrote:
Rulings should be arbitrary, IMO. Objective liability systems get complicated and stupid. For example, in Texas, if you are backing your car out and there is an accident, it is automatically your fault, even if the accident was due to someone who was trying to "beat the train", in a figurative sense.

That means you want arbitrary rulings, meaning that there is no law, no predictability in conflicts. That means each you would go to conflict every time, even though you know you are in the wrong, as you may win, because rulings are practically arbitrary.

Not necessarily (and even if this were so, it wouldn't be a problem). Because people would actually have to pay court fees, this would be discouraged. Frivolous lawsuits thrive under YOUR system.

Who said my system would not have court fees? :-)

Also, you would chose [sic] a DRO that is filled with your friends, because they would be guaranteed to rule for you, since they are in no way bound to any rules.

You missed the whole "would agree to" part.

No.

If you can't trust the DRO's, and without rules, you can't, people would not be inclined to use the DRO's. They would solve conflicts directly, with violence.

In that regard, is the court system not violence as well?

No.

Name calling, much. I'm being a happy Devil's Advocate. You should be well-aware that that was not "my answer".

Fair enought, but "the" answer still is "Use violence".

Before we proceed, define violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Of course you couldn't. He doesn't have an answer. There is only one answer, and that is some sort of police force with a monopoly on violence. And that means a state. And he doesn't want one. So he is not going to answer, as answering would force him to admit that he was wrong.

He'll get there, but not this year. :)

Straw-man claim.

Hm. No, not really.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 10:58:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Unsurprisingly, but still disappointingly, I don't get much real answers.
So, now I'm going to answer point 4.

1. How should conflicts between individuals be solved? By the use of force, or by the use of some sort of system of arbitration?

2. If there should be an arbitration system, should the arbitration use a system of rules of arbitrations, or should the rulings be arbitrary?

3. If there should be rules, how should the rules be decided?

4. If there should be an arbitration system, how should the arbitrations be enforced?

My answers are:

1. Arbitration.
2. Rules.
3. Democratically.

4. By an organization, which job it is to enforce the democratically agreed rules, by force if necessary. Also known as "The Police".

The fact is that these answers are the only practically possible and reasonable answers. We must have a state. Society doesn't not work otherwise.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 1:59:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/17/2009 11:15:06 AM, wjmelements wrote:
http://www.freedomainradio.com...

http://www.freedomainradio.com...

http://www.freedomainradio.com...

If you want the anarchist response...

That's not a response. Maybe there is one somewhere in there, but I can't be bothered to listen to it in the vague hope that there may be.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 2:06:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/17/2009 2:00:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The entire first one is about this topic in particular.

Yes, and IMO, there is no answer in there. If you want me to respond to it in detail, you write it down here and I'll answer.
So prove me wrong, then.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 4:10:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. Arbitration
2. Depends on the conflict
3. According to affectedness
4. Depends on the conflict
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 7:46:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Again, just playing Devil's Advocate. I am capable of defending all sorts of ideologies and standpoints.

At 8/17/2009 2:06:11 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/17/2009 2:00:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The entire first one is about this topic in particular.

Yes, and IMO, there is no answer in there. If you want me to respond to it in detail, you write it down here and I'll answer.

Under anarchy, individuals would seek to join private governments equivalents for protection, which would essentially carry out the functions of government (protect civil liberties and prevent crime, etc.)
Any sane person would want to join these private governments because membership would allow for the enforcement of contracts and their protection.
The differences between this system and the current is that the current is a monopoly with universally accepted coercive authority. As you know, monopolies love to be powerful and love to use their authority (as we have seen in the government expansion since the dawn of creation).
The original solution to this problem was the socialist one, that the people should own monopoly. This approach was justified with the whole "Power from the people" claim and therefore justified. However, this eroded with the election of representatives as opposed to direct democracy.
The monopoly continued to abuse its power, despite other limiting attempts, such as constitutions, revolutions... It just has never worked out.

The advantages to this "panarchist" private government system are great. Governments must compete, meaning that dues will be minimal. Government functions will have to be limited in order to achieve this minimal cost, and it will become impractical for tyranny such as Drug Criminalization to occur because people could just leave their government.
War would cease to exist because there would be no political boundaries and because an attempt to wage a war because there would be no benefits and dues would increase.

Funny how well the private sector government system works:
-World Peace
-Limited Taxation
-No tyranny
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2009 4:43:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/17/2009 7:46:23 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Again, just playing Devil's Advocate. I am capable of defending all sorts of ideologies and standpoints.

At 8/17/2009 2:06:11 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/17/2009 2:00:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The entire first one is about this topic in particular.

Yes, and IMO, there is no answer in there. If you want me to respond to it in detail, you write it down here and I'll answer.

Under anarchy, individuals would seek to join private governments equivalents for protection, which would essentially carry out the functions of government (protect civil liberties and prevent crime, etc.)
Any sane person would want to join these private governments because membership would allow for the enforcement of contracts and their protection.
The differences between this system and the current is that the current is a monopoly with universally accepted coercive authority. As you know, monopolies love to be powerful and love to use their authority (as we have seen in the government expansion since the dawn of creation).
The original solution to this problem was the socialist one, that the people should own monopoly. This approach was justified with the whole "Power from the people" claim and therefore justified. However, this eroded with the election of representatives as opposed to direct democracy.
The monopoly continued to abuse its power, despite other limiting attempts, such as constitutions, revolutions... It just has never worked out.

The advantages to this "panarchist" private government system are great. Governments must compete, meaning that dues will be minimal. Government functions will have to be limited in order to achieve this minimal cost, and it will become impractical for tyranny such as Drug Criminalization to occur because people could just leave their government.
War would cease to exist because there would be no political boundaries and because an attempt to wage a war because there would be no benefits and dues would increase.

Funny how well the private sector government system works:
-World Peace
-Limited Taxation
-No tyranny

So let me get this straight, instead of one huge and corrupt Government we have lots of little competing governments, which because they are small will be able deny human and behave.

Anarchy is a nice idea, but it does not make any practical sense.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2009 10:46:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/18/2009 4:43:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/17/2009 7:46:23 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Again, just playing Devil's Advocate. I am capable of defending all sorts of ideologies and standpoints.

At 8/17/2009 2:06:11 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/17/2009 2:00:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The entire first one is about this topic in particular.

Yes, and IMO, there is no answer in there. If you want me to respond to it in detail, you write it down here and I'll answer.

Under anarchy, individuals would seek to join private governments equivalents for protection, which would essentially carry out the functions of government (protect civil liberties and prevent crime, etc.)
Any sane person would want to join these private governments because membership would allow for the enforcement of contracts and their protection.
The differences between this system and the current is that the current is a monopoly with universally accepted coercive authority. As you know, monopolies love to be powerful and love to use their authority (as we have seen in the government expansion since the dawn of creation).
The original solution to this problem was the socialist one, that the people should own monopoly. This approach was justified with the whole "Power from the people" claim and therefore justified. However, this eroded with the election of representatives as opposed to direct democracy.
The monopoly continued to abuse its power, despite other limiting attempts, such as constitutions, revolutions... It just has never worked out.

The advantages to this "panarchist" private government system are great. Governments must compete, meaning that dues will be minimal. Government functions will have to be limited in order to achieve this minimal cost, and it will become impractical for tyranny such as Drug Criminalization to occur because people could just leave their government.
War would cease to exist because there would be no political boundaries and because an attempt to wage a war because there would be no benefits and dues would increase.

Funny how well the private sector government system works:
-World Peace
-Limited Taxation
-No tyranny

So let me get this straight, instead of one huge and corrupt Government we have lots of little competing governments, which because they are small will be able deny human and behave.

Anarchy is a nice idea, but it does not make any practical sense.

Anarchism doesn't imply such decentralization. Bakunin said that a sovereingty cannot survive but in a perpetual state of conquest, to which I would add that such conquest is easier, hence more profitable, not harder, when the enemy is individually isolated as in the oddly-named "panarchy" above. Anarchism, on the other hand, is merely the absence of rank, thus implying democracy/socialism to the extent that property has not been reified.

Such reification is of course difficult to resist when the "information" sector is dominated by archists, as it is nearly everywhere. And the theatrical conflict between rhetorically/relatively state paternal/identical and rhetorically/relatively capital paternal/identical political parties is also useful, as it provides dissenters with a ready-made alternative that is in reality more shock absorber than alternative. The Soviet Union was not so sophisticated, which contributed to both its demise and a culture of common sense that is essential to anarchism but sadly lacking in, for example, the US.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2009 1:56:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/17/2009 7:46:23 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Again, just playing Devil's Advocate. I am capable of defending all sorts of ideologies and standpoints.
Under anarchy, individuals would seek to join private governments equivalents for protection, which would essentially carry out the functions of government (protect civil liberties and prevent crime, etc.)

This answer is unique, because it doesn't try to rename the government and pretend it's something different. It just says they are "private". But private means it's not government owned. So what does "private government equivalent" mean? "Private" is meaningless, so all you say is that you instead of governments will have governments.

Any sane person would want to join these private governments because membership would allow for the enforcement of contracts and their protection.

Of course. That's what I'm saying. Sane people want a state.

The differences between this system and the current is that the current is a monopoly with universally accepted coercive authority.

It has a monopoly in a particular geographic area yes. That's the only way to avoid permanent war.

Funny how well the private sector government system works:

Funny how well it has in fact never worked at all. Anywhere.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2009 1:57:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/17/2009 4:10:01 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
1. Arbitration

OK, so you want a court system of some sort. So far so good.

2. Depends on the conflict
3. According to affectedness
4. Depends on the conflict

These answers feels like cop-outs. Can you expand?
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2009 2:04:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I was expecting a more detailed response.

At 8/18/2009 1:56:00 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/17/2009 7:46:23 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Again, just playing Devil's Advocate. I am capable of defending all sorts of ideologies and standpoints.
Under anarchy, individuals would seek to join private governments equivalents for protection, which would essentially carry out the functions of government (protect civil liberties and prevent crime, etc.)

This answer is unique, because it doesn't try to rename the government and pretend it's something different. It just says they are "private". But private means it's not government owned. So what does "private government equivalent" mean? "Private" is meaningless, so all you say is that you instead of governments will have governments.

Private does not just mean "not public", it means that it is individually owned, as opposed to some symbolic collective. You don't seem to grasp the concept here.

Any sane person would want to join these private governments because membership would allow for the enforcement of contracts and their protection.

Of course. That's what I'm saying. Sane people want a state.

Misinterpretation, much. Have you been drinking? You're response is like me claiming that the people like being alone and you responding by saying that sane people want to kill off everyone else in the world.

If these functions can be carried out without a state, then we needn't the state.

The differences between this system and the current is that the current is a monopoly with universally accepted coercive authority.

It has a monopoly in a particular geographic area yes. That's the only way to avoid permanent war.

How so?
And you're avoiding the whole freer competition part. By eliminating the state-enforced monopoly, we create competition that betters the people as a whole.

Funny how well the private sector government system works:

Funny how well it has in fact never worked at all. Anywhere.

Because there has been a state.
There was world peace before government.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 4:03:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/18/2009 2:04:50 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/18/2009 1:56:00 PM, regebro wrote:
This answer is unique, because it doesn't try to rename the government and pretend it's something different. It just says they are "private". But private means it's not government owned. So what does "private government equivalent" mean? "Private" is meaningless, so all you say is that you instead of governments will have governments.

Private does not just mean "not public", it means that it is individually owned, as opposed to some symbolic collective. You don't seem to grasp the concept here.

Indeed, I don't. I do not see how a government can be anything else than privately owned, quote simply. Unless of course, it's owned by another government, in which case it's for all intents and purposes are the same government.

Of course. That's what I'm saying. Sane people want a state.

Misinterpretation, much. Have you been drinking? You're response is like me claiming that the people like being alone and you responding by saying that sane people want to kill off everyone else in the world.

No, you just don't understand the effects of what you are saying. I will try to make it clear, but it will have to be gradually.

Here I just concluded that you say everybody want to have a government, and that I say the same thing.

If these functions can be carried out without a state, then we needn't the state.

And the point is: They can't.

It has a monopoly in a particular geographic area yes. That's the only way to avoid permanent war.

How so?

I'll explain that once we have cleared up the current miscommunictaion which seems to be linguistic. Once we speak the same language, I'll explain this (because it's a bit complicated).

And you're avoiding the whole freer competition part. By eliminating the state-enforced monopoly, we create competition that betters the people as a whole.

Violence is not a commodity you want to trade, or have competition in. Cheap violence is not a good thing.

Because there has been a state.

Not always.

There was world peace before government.

Patently and obviously false to anyone who has ever opened a history book. In fact, today is the most peaceful time in human history.
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 10:21:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 4:03:43 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/18/2009 2:04:50 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/18/2009 1:56:00 PM, regebro wrote:
This answer is unique, because it doesn't try to rename the government and pretend it's something different. It just says they are "private". But private means it's not government owned. So what does "private government equivalent" mean? "Private" is meaningless, so all you say is that you instead of governments will have governments.

Private does not just mean "not public", it means that it is individually owned, as opposed to some symbolic collective. You don't seem to grasp the concept here.

Indeed, I don't. I do not see how a government can be anything else than privately owned, quote simply. Unless of course, it's owned by another government, in which case it's for all intents and purposes are the same government.

It's a government equivalent, a company that carries out the functions of government through voluntary contract, as seen in the panarchist model.

Of course. That's what I'm saying. Sane people want a state.

Misinterpretation, much. Have you been drinking? You're response is like me claiming that the people like being alone and you responding by saying that sane people want to kill off everyone else in the world.

No, you just don't understand the effects of what you are saying. I will try to make it clear, but it will have to be gradually.

Here I just concluded that you say everybody want to have a government, and that I say the same thing.

Okay, I think I understand your misconception.

Panarchism is non-geographical government, entirely contractual. This means that without forfeiting one's property, one can switch between governing authorities. Such a system would end the local monopolies that current governments hold and force these government equivalents to have lower taxes, no non-anticoercive laws, and would make acts of war destructive to one's own company.

It has a monopoly in a particular geographic area yes. That's the only way to avoid permanent war.

How so?

I'll explain that once we have cleared up the current miscommunictaion which seems to be linguistic. Once we speak the same language, I'll explain this (because it's a bit complicated).

Alright.

And you're avoiding the whole freer competition part. By eliminating the state-enforced monopoly, we create competition that betters the people as a whole.

Violence is not a commodity you want to trade, or have competition in. Cheap violence is not a good thing.

It is not violence, but protection. People will not agree to subject themselves to violence, so violence does not get cheaper, but lesser.

Because there has been a state.

Not always.

Not always, yes, but during every war, there has been a form of government.

There was world peace before government.

Patently and obviously false to anyone who has ever opened a history book. In fact, today is the most peaceful time in human history.

When has war occured under anarchy?

Peaceful:
-War in Afghanistan
-Iranian Nuclear thread
-N. Korean Nuclear threat
-Civil wars in African countries

You were joking by "most peaceful time in human history", right?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 3:45:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 10:21:29 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/19/2009 4:03:43 AM, regebro wrote:
Indeed, I don't. I do not see how a government can be anything else than privately owned, quote simply. Unless of course, it's owned by another government, in which case it's for all intents and purposes are the same government.

It's a government equivalent, a company that carries out the functions of government through voluntary contract, as seen in the panarchist model.

So, it's a democratic government.

Panarchism is non-geographical government, entirely contractual. This means that without forfeiting one's property, one can switch between governing authorities. Such a system would end the local monopolies that current governments hold and force these government equivalents to have lower taxes, no non-anticoercive laws, and would make acts of war destructive to one's own company.

I'm aware of the theory.

Violence is not a commodity you want to trade, or have competition in. Cheap violence is not a good thing.

It is not violence, but protection.

It's still violence.

People will not agree to subject themselves to violence

Right. So they will only agree to a contract where violence is projected towards others. They have no interest in signing a contract where they can end up in jail in the end.

Because there has been a state.

Not always.

Not always, yes, but during every war, there has been a form of government.

Only if you define "war" as violence between governments. Which is begging the question. If you instead define "war" as violence between groups, then the statement is false.

There was world peace before government.

Patently and obviously false to anyone who has ever opened a history book. In fact, today is the most peaceful time in human history.

When has war occured under anarchy?

Constantly. Anarchy leads to constant warfare. Government appeared because one side won the war, and created a monopoly on violence, so that the warring ended.

Peaceful:
-War in Afghanistan
-Iranian Nuclear thread
-N. Korean Nuclear threat
-Civil wars in African countries

The worst of these wars happen when the state fails, hence, under the absence of a functioning government.

You were joking by "most peaceful time in human history", right?

Not in the least bit. My wife is nagging me, I'll give you the reference tomorrow. But the fact is that this is the most peaceful time in history. Being murdered used to be a common reason for death. It's states that has stopped that. And trade stopped states warring. Less people are dying by the hands of other men than any time in human history.
So prove me wrong, then.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 7:03:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/18/2009 1:57:07 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/17/2009 4:10:01 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
2. Depends on the conflict
3. According to affectedness
4. Depends on the conflict

These answers feels like cop-outs. Can you expand?

2 and 4 simply reflect differences between conflicts. wjelements gave an example of one conflict, a pulling out fender bender, that should perhaps be settled through arbitrary arbitration. It certainly serves as an example of a conflict whose ruling's enforcement should be relatively relaxed. As you "strategically" declined to give your own answer to 4, I won't speculate further as to what was meant by "how". As for 2, some types of conflicts should probably have rules of arbitration, such as in the case of one motorist running a stop sign and hitting another. These are of course only my opinions. As to whose opinions should matter, I direct you to 3.

3 is somewhat distinct from conventional meanings of "democratically". For example, take Prop 8. Prop 8 was democratic in the sense that it empowered majority will but undemocratic in the sense that it opposed general will. As straight people are only academically affected by gay marriage, they should've had less of a vote if any. There are certainly challenges to determining affectednes, but affectedness is not unique in that regard. For example, why is the voting age 18? Why not 16 or 19? Why are those guilty of felonies prohibited from voting? Why not misdemeanors as well or disregard criminal history? Why are retarded people disenfranchised? Why not slow people as well or disregard intelligence? If the tough decisions can be made for capacity, why not affectedness?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 7:30:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 3:45:09 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/19/2009 10:21:29 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/19/2009 4:03:43 AM, regebro wrote:
Indeed, I don't. I do not see how a government can be anything else than privately owned, quote simply. Unless of course, it's owned by another government, in which case it's for all intents and purposes are the same government.

It's a government equivalent, a company that carries out the functions of government through voluntary contract, as seen in the panarchist model.

So, it's a democratic government.

Democratic governments are not justified in this way because the will of the majority is pressed on the minority. Panarchy solves this issue.

Panarchism is non-geographical government, entirely contractual. This means that without forfeiting one's property, one can switch between governing authorities. Such a system would end the local monopolies that current governments hold and force these government equivalents to have lower taxes, no non-anticoercive laws, and would make acts of war destructive to one's own company.

I'm aware of the theory.

Good for you. Would you mind stating a refution?

Violence is not a commodity you want to trade, or have competition in. Cheap violence is not a good thing.

It is not violence, but protection.

It's still violence.

Having a bodyguard is violence? (metaphor)

People will not agree to subject themselves to violence

Right. So they will only agree to a contract where violence is projected towards others.

But those "others" will seek the protection of another government equivalent, and will be safe. What's interesting is that the violence of which you speak is crime protection.

They have no interest in signing a contract where they can end up in jail in the end.

Not necessarily. In order to carry out their function, all government equivalents would have to have some sort of punishment mechanism for those who commit crimes.

Because there has been a state.

Not always.

Not always, yes, but during every war, there has been a form of government.

Only if you define "war" as violence between governments. Which is begging the question. If you instead define "war" as violence between groups, then the statement is false.

I see what you're saying, but such violence cannot occur between private governments in the interest of profit, so we are eliminating one of the major sources of war in establishing panarchy.

There was world peace before government.

Patently and obviously false to anyone who has ever opened a history book. In fact, today is the most peaceful time in human history.

When has war occured under anarchy?

Constantly. Anarchy leads to constant warfare. Government appeared because one side won the war, and created a monopoly on violence, so that the warring ended.

And then the losing side was subjected to slavery enforced by the newfound peacekeeping tyranny. Always a shame when violence wins.

Peaceful:
-War in Afghanistan
-Iranian Nuclear thread
-N. Korean Nuclear threat
-Civil wars in African countries

The worst of these wars happen when the state fails, hence, under the absence of a functioning government.

Panarchy is not the absense of order and protection from violence.

You were joking by "most peaceful time in human history", right?

Not in the least bit. I'll give you the reference tomorrow. But the fact is that this is the most peaceful time in history. Being murdered used to be a common reason for death. It's states that has stopped that. And trade stopped states warring. Less people are dying by the hands of other men than any time in human history.

Because of liberty and capitalism. The division of labour naturally makes it more profitable to trade and therefore there is a lesser economic need for war and coercion. Ethics step in and violence lessens. I can understand why now would be more peaceful than before.

My wife is nagging me,
lol
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:15:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 7:03:20 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
2 and 4 simply reflect differences between conflicts. wjelements gave an example of one conflict, a pulling out fender bender, that should perhaps be settled through arbitrary arbitration. It certainly serves as an example of a conflict whose ruling's enforcement should be relatively relaxed. As you "strategically" declined to give your own answer to 4, I won't speculate further as to what was meant by "how". As for 2, some types of conflicts should probably have rules of arbitration, such as in the case of one motorist running a stop sign and hitting another. These are of course only my opinions. As to whose opinions should matter, I direct you to 3.

At least we agree that there should be rules. The point here is that there should be rules that are not to be broken, by anyone. Also known as laws.

3 is somewhat distinct from conventional meanings of "democratically". For example, take Prop 8. Prop 8 was democratic in the sense that it empowered majority will but undemocratic in the sense that it opposed general will. As straight people are only academically affected by gay marriage, they should've had less of a vote if any. There are certainly challenges to determining affectednes, but affectedness is not unique in that regard. For example, why is the voting age 18? Why not 16 or 19? Why are those guilty of felonies prohibited from voting? Why not misdemeanors as well or disregard criminal history? Why are retarded people disenfranchised? Why not slow people as well or disregard intelligence? If the tough decisions can be made for capacity, why not affectedness?

This is all academic, as determining affectedness again must be done democratically, if such a system is done. So this will just become a discussion of how a democratic system looks. I think we can leave that discussion.

So, should have courts (1) and laws (2) which are determined democratically (3). We agree on this. Conflicts where nobody has broken the law, can reasonably be arbitrated without laws.

Hence all that remains is 4.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:33:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 7:30:36 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/19/2009 3:45:09 PM, regebro wrote:
So, it's a democratic government.

Democratic governments are not justified in this way because the will of the majority is pressed on the minority. Panarchy solves this issue.

No it doesn't, because it will instead be the group with the most capacity for force that presses their rule of law on everyone else.

I'm aware of the theory.

Good for you. Would you mind stating a refution?

This is what I currently am in the process of doing. Or rather, I'm trying to explain why it doesn't work. Just stating a refutation is easy, but pointless, as you can ignore it or intentionally misinterpret it. I need to explain, or I feel that I have failed.

Violence is not a commodity you want to trade, or have competition in. Cheap violence is not a good thing.

It is not violence, but protection.

It's still violence.

Having a bodyguard is violence? (metaphor)

It's not a metaphor. It's ignoring the question. You are not hiring bodyguards, you are joining a legal system that has a police force, and will use violence towards other legal systems. It is violence.

People will not agree to subject themselves to violence

Right. So they will only agree to a contract where violence is projected towards others.

But those "others" will seek the protection of another government equivalent, and will be safe.

No, they will not be safe. You will have sever "government equivalents" which will protect their members but use violence towards others. This will result in the government equivalents engaging in war.

This is *exactly* what happens in so called "failed states", where different groups fall out in war with each other.

What's interesting is that the violence of which you speak is crime protection.

Yes. Where "crime" is what others do.

Not necessarily. In order to carry out their function, all government equivalents would have to have some sort of punishment mechanism for those who commit crimes.

Yes. And this will only be directed towards non-members. Because in the competition between different GE's, you would rather choose one who promises to NOT put you in jail, towards someone that says they might do that.

I'm not sure exactly what I need to do to make you realize the nature of violence. But my point here is that what you call government equivalents, others call mafias. There is no practical difference (and not much in theory either).

Only if you define "war" as violence between governments. Which is begging the question. If you instead define "war" as violence between groups, then the statement is false.

I see what you're saying, but such violence cannot occur between private governments in the interest of profit

Oh yes it can, and it has many times through history. Most governments in history has been "private", that is that they are owned and controlled by a small group, usually known as "nobility", and they tend to engage in wars towards neighboring "private government equivalents" to get power and money.

so we are eliminating one of the major sources of war in establishing panarchy.

No. You are just replacing democratic governments with private mafias and petty kings, but with a new fancy name of "private government equivalents".

And then the losing side was subjected to slavery enforced by the newfound peacekeeping tyranny. Always a shame when violence wins.

Exactly. This is what private government equivalents always have led to and always will lead to.

The worst of these wars happen when the state fails, hence, under the absence of a functioning government.

Panarchy is not the absense of order and protection from violence.

It is also not, as you seem to think, the absence of violence. It is in fact the competition of violence.

Not in the least bit. I'll give you the reference tomorrow. But the fact is that this is the most peaceful time in history. Being murdered used to be a common reason for death. It's states that has stopped that. And trade stopped states warring. Less people are dying by the hands of other men than any time in human history.

Because of liberty and capitalism.

Yes. And none of these can exist without a commonly agreed legal system that protects us from the violence of others.
So prove me wrong, then.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 10:03:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 1:15:33 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/19/2009 7:03:20 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
2 and 4 simply reflect differences between conflicts. wjelements gave an example of one conflict, a pulling out fender bender, that should perhaps be settled through arbitrary arbitration. It certainly serves as an example of a conflict whose ruling's enforcement should be relatively relaxed. As you "strategically" declined to give your own answer to 4, I won't speculate further as to what was meant by "how". As for 2, some types of conflicts should probably have rules of arbitration, such as in the case of one motorist running a stop sign and hitting another. These are of course only my opinions. As to whose opinions should matter, I direct you to 3.

At least we agree that there should be rules. The point here is that there should be rules that are not to be broken, by anyone. Also known as laws.

But anarchism does not imply disdain for "laws". The source of the rules is what's important.

3 is somewhat distinct from conventional meanings of "democratically". For example, take Prop 8. Prop 8 was democratic in the sense that it empowered majority will but undemocratic in the sense that it opposed general will. As straight people are only academically affected by gay marriage, they should've had less of a vote if any. There are certainly challenges to determining affectednes, but affectedness is not unique in that regard. For example, why is the voting age 18? Why not 16 or 19? Why are those guilty of felonies prohibited from voting? Why not misdemeanors as well or disregard criminal history? Why are retarded people disenfranchised? Why not slow people as well or disregard intelligence? If the tough decisions can be made for capacity, why not affectedness?

This is all academic, as determining affectedness again must be done democratically, if such a system is done.

If by "democaratically" you mean the conventional definition, I disagree. Was U.S. voting age decided "democratically"? In fact, it was decided by mandatory supermajorities of Senators age 30+, Congressmen age 25+, and state legislatures of various age- and other requirements. What about a vote on all of those those requirements? Such would likewise have to be in the form of a constitutional ammendment, and so it would be decided by the very people who benefit from the status quo, including the no-less-than-18-year-old people who put them there, qualified by various state-level criminal, "idiot" and "lunatic" restrictions, of course. In any case, that even deciding how to vote requires voting, results in an infinite regression. At a point, it must suffice that the people who are unsatisfied with the outcome are satisfied with the voting method--satisfied enough not to revolt, the latter of which each should consider his ultimate right in the face of injustice. The rule of majority will, as opposed to general will, is one such injustice.

So, should have courts (1) and laws (2) which are determined democratically (3). We agree on this. Conflicts where nobody has broken the law, can reasonably be arbitrated without laws.

Hence all that remains is 4.

And "how" remains vague (there is a one-sentence answer and a detailed, hundred-page answer). I already responded to 4 in two ways, first by saying that rules should be enforced in proportion to their importance, second by saying that the "how" of enforcement should be up to the general will, not a random amateur theorist. Both of these answers I consider obvious, but no more obvious than any other possible answer of comparable length (anarchism is an obvious truism), and I know how you feel about an answer being overly "academic" (long). Nonetheless, I'll try a couple other answers this time:

1) I certainly don't believe a person, as the so-called "market anarchists" would have it, loses his human rights upon breaking the law. It will probably require breaking the law to achieve anarchy, so the law-breaker should not be looked upon as anarchists are looked upon by pre-anarchistic authorities. The law-breaker should be treated with equal compassion and observing that he may be in the right, that no law is infallible.

2) Law enforcement should probably not be characterized by professional police, because the benefits of division of labor there do not make up for the danger of tyranny. Any standing police should be rotated, but it's not even clear that standing police will be necessary: in the absence of God, capitalism, and the State, criminal almost implies lunatic. Of course, in the case of external threats to the anarchist society, compromises must be made, providing they don't forget the internal threat of too much compromise.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 12:43:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 10:03:56 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
But anarchism does not imply disdain for "laws".

Never said it did.

The source of the rules is what's important.

It is important, yes. It's not "what is" important, because many things are important in this question. In fact, I'd claim 4 things are the real important things, and the source of the rules is only one of those things (#3, more specifically).

This is all academic, as determining affectedness again must be done democratically, if such a system is done.

If by "democaratically" you mean the conventional definition, I disagree.

Then you imply that it is better if it's determined in a non-democratic way, which would be a daft point of view.

Again: How a democratic system should be constructed is besides the point, and a whole different discussion.

Hence all that remains is 4.

And "how" remains vague (there is a one-sentence answer and a detailed, hundred-page answer).

This goes for every political question. You can start with the one-sentence one of you like.

I already responded to 4 in two ways, first by saying that rules should be enforced in proportion to their importance

Answering "how much" does not answer "how".

second by saying that the "how" of enforcement should be up to the general will, not a random amateur theorist.

Which of course isn't an answer, but avoiding an answer.

1) I certainly don't believe a person, as the so-called "market anarchists" would have it, loses his human rights upon breaking the law. It will probably require breaking the law to achieve anarchy, so the law-breaker should not be looked upon as anarchists are looked upon by pre-anarchistic authorities. The law-breaker should be treated with equal compassion and observing that he may be in the right, that no law is infallible.

I agree. I think you are completely aware of what is meant with "how" in this question, and that you are again just avoiding the answer.

2) Law enforcement should probably not be characterized by professional police, because the benefits of division of labor there do not make up for the danger of tyranny. Any standing police should be rotated, but it's not even clear that standing police will be necessary: in the absence of God, capitalism, and the State, criminal almost implies lunatic. Of course, in the case of external threats to the anarchist society, compromises must be made, providing they don't forget the internal threat of too much compromise.

The danger of tyranny in a democratic state has shown to be quite small, so I don't agree. But it can be noted that this answer presumes a monopoly on violence, and simply discusses who within that monopoly should do the policing. My point is that we need a monopoly.

Believing that removing capitalism would remove crime is funny, but also besides the point, so I'll let that pass.

So we agree on 1 and 2. I think we agree on 3, but you seem to have some sort of pathologic dislike for the word "democracy", but I think you agree with the principles. And as to 4, the only answer you gave was that there should be a police force, but it's members should be rotated.

I don't have any principal disagreement with this.
1. Courts.
2. Laws.
3. Democratically.
4. A police force.
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:43:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 12:43:20 PM, regebro wrote:
The danger of tyranny in a democratic state has shown to be quite small

Depends on one's definition of tyranny, I suppose. I define tyranny as coercion not against coercive behaviour enforced with violence. Under my definition, democracy is tyranny for those not in the temporary majority.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light