Total Posts:100|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchy

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 12:31:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We seem to have a few anarchists, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists but very seldom do we see an explanation or a defence of such a position.

Now am I right in believing that anarchy is the absence of external laws, and external coercion?

In which case how are interpersonal disputes settled? Property rights defended? Anti-social behaviour identified and stopped?

I have asked several times before, yet to get a serious reply.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 12:44:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As I understand it, most anarchists/minarchists/Randian libertarians on this website are against the idea of "initiatory coercion," or essentially being forced by another individual/entity/whatever to do something against their will, without any mutual causation. They aren't against the use of force where it is used to defend themselves against initiatory coercion.

With that in mind, disputes are settled between individuals on the basis of who did what first, and "anti-social behavior" is a non-issue because so long as it doesn't harm another person, it doesn't matter at all.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 12:49:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The statist got it about right.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 12:51:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 12:49:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The statist got it about right.

Gotta make sure I'm brushed up on my anarchist philosophy. Never know when it can come in handy.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 12:55:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Their proposed society would be incredibly dysfunctional, corrupt and short-lived regardless of any basis they present for their position. I'm not against all of their ethics, but I do think the government can and probably should be used as a tool to maximize society's potential and satisfaction (to an extent)... going the anarchy route is way too extreme and kind of far-fetched and idealistic.
President of DDO
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 1:21:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Somalia has been without a government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991. Since then, warlords and pirates have ruled what is, essentially, an anarchistic state.

I can see many attractions in emigrating there. A bloke down the pub spill your pint? No problem, let your AK-47 teach him to be more careful in the future by using it to blast his kneecaps off - and no need to rush your drink and do a runner before the filth arrives to arrest you because there are no police and there are no beaks to prosecute you.

So you carry on knocking back triples off the top shelf until you are completely paralytic, but how are you going to get home? Well, drive, of course! There's nobody to stop you.

Yes, there are many attractions to living in an anarchy (not least of all no tax) but I suppose there are probably some serious downsides that I can't see.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 1:33:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In a modern civilized society, such things shouldn't be a problem. We shouldn't have to worry about barbarians pulling out AKs on us. However, I agree that anarchy wouldn't work regardless. There needs to be some structure, some order, and a maintained infrastructure, just not one that dictates our lives.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 1:36:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 12:31:06 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Minarchy

In which case how are interpersonal disputes settled?
Arbitration
Property rights defended?
Police and courts
Anti-social behaviour identified and stopped?
What kind of anti-social behavour?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 1:42:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 1:33:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
In a modern civilized society, such things shouldn't be a problem. We shouldn't have to worry about barbarians pulling out AKs on us. However, I agree that anarchy wouldn't work regardless. There needs to be some structure, some order, and a maintained infrastructure, just not one that dictates our lives.

I'm not a barbarian - all I was saying was that if a bloke spilled your pint, you shouldn't over-react and blow his head off, but rather keep your temper and do him the favour of teaching him a valuable lesson in etiquette by blasting his kneecaps off!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 1:43:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 1:42:09 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I'm not a barbarian - all I was saying was that if a bloke spilled your pint, you shouldn't over-react and blow his head off, but rather keep your temper and do him the favour of teaching him a valuable lesson in etiquette by blasting his kneecaps off!

Sigged.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 1:49:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 12:31:06 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Now am I right in believing that anarchy is the absence of external laws, and external coercion?

There are different types of anarchy, but the one usually advocated by right-libertarians is a system of "common law" protecting person and property.

Anarchocapitalism holds that individual defense companies, paid for in premiums (as seen in the insurance company), would be a more effective and ethical means of protection than the current abusive and collective state.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 2:57:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anarchy, and anarcho-capitalism, and any subset thereof, are not viable at all. Advocates of said position argue against "initiatory coercion" (taxes) and argue for maximum freedom. They substitute taxes for user fees in minarchy, which just end up costing more than taxes and being much less efficient, and much more prone to corruption. I don't really know what advocates of anarchism would do with maximum freedom, as they either haven't got any @ss in their lives, or are loners. In the end though, you'd end up losing all your freedom when some guy amasses an army big enough to enslave everyone.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 3:07:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 2:57:27 PM, Nags wrote:
In the end though, you'd end up losing all your freedom when some guy amasses an army big enough to enslave everyone.

To be fair, the answer to such an issue is that there will be enough individuals out there that are "freedom-loving" and would join together to stop any large, collective force which threatens that "freedom." However, most realize that this can hardly be guaranteed to occur, or that in the aftermath, there will be no guarantee that force will not do the same as what it was designed to stop, because as we all know, power begets power.

Then you have minarchists who believe in having the state present in order to stop anything like that, but it is limited in so many ways that it is essentially neutered in most respects. Kind of like "controlled anarchy," lol. However, this becomes a problem whenever you introduce democracy, because the majority of people will most likely not want a completely neutered state in the way minarchists want it, and whenever you throw in that mix of competing interests, you inevitably end up with either sporadic violence, or a state clamping down, which kind of goes against the entire point anyways.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 3:10:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 2:57:27 PM, Nags wrote:
Anarchy, and anarcho-capitalism, and any subset thereof, are not viable at all. Advocates of said position argue against "initiatory coercion" (taxes) and argue for maximum freedom. They substitute taxes for user fees in minarchy, which just end up costing more than taxes and being much less efficient, and much more prone to corruption. I don't really know what advocates of anarchism would do with maximum freedom, as they either haven't got any @ss in their lives, or are loners. In the end though, you'd end up losing all your freedom when some guy amasses an army big enough to enslave everyone.

Sigged.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 3:12:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 3:07:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
To be fair, the answer to such an issue is that there will be enough individuals out there that are "freedom-loving" and would join together to stop any large, collective force which threatens that "freedom." However, most realize that this can hardly be guaranteed to occur, or that in the aftermath, there will be no guarantee that force will not do the same as what it was designed to stop, because as we all know, power begets power.

I doubt "freedom-loving" people would be able to amass a big enough force to counter the army. Even if there is, they wouldn't be organized and they wouldn't be armed. The CEO of the biggest company would have more wealth than everyone else, and would have no problem amassing a small military as technologically advanced as the militaries of today. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles by the common folk wouldn't have much of an affect against such a force.

Then you have minarchists who believe in having the state present in order to stop anything like that, but it is limited in so many ways that it is essentially neutered in most respects. Kind of like "controlled anarchy," lol. However, this becomes a problem whenever you introduce democracy, because the majority of people will most likely not want a completely neutered state in the way minarchists want it, and whenever you throw in that mix of competing interests, you inevitably end up with either sporadic violence, or a state clamping down, which kind of goes against the entire point anyways.

Yup.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 3:16:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 3:12:18 PM, Nags wrote:
I doubt "freedom-loving" people would be able to amass a big enough force to counter the army. Even if there is, they wouldn't be organized and they wouldn't be armed. The CEO of the biggest company would have more wealth than everyone else, and would have no problem amassing a small military as technologically advanced as the militaries of today. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles by the common folk wouldn't have much of an affect against such a force.

Good point. Then that means the only powers that would be able to stop such a thing would be other companies that would be competitive, at least in some way. Which of course leads to polarization, which then leads to the amassing of power on both sides, which leads to more control (because you can't run an effective army without control), which leads to leaders, states, taxes...

I can see how well this will end.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 3:20:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 3:19:28 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/15/2010 3:16:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
I can see how well this will end.

Lol. Pretty much.

theLwerd, Volkov, and Nags agreeing on the same topic -- this is a first. :)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 3:20:23 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/15/2010 3:19:28 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/15/2010 3:16:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
I can see how well this will end.

Lol. Pretty much.

theLwerd, Volkov, and Nags agreeing on the same topic -- this is a first. :)

INB4 "Statists."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 4:23:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 2:57:27 PM, Nags wrote:
They substitute taxes for user fees in minarchy, which just end up costing more than taxes and being much less efficient, and much more prone to corruption.
Since you haven't stated any premises, I would presume this an empirical argument, except that there are no real examples of such a government.

In the end though, you'd end up losing all your freedom when some guy amasses an army big enough to enslave everyone.
In the end, you lose your classical liberalism/socialism/moderate keynesianism/theocracy/fascism/??? whenever some guy amasses an army big enough to do whatever it is you didn't want to happen.

In other words, not an argument against the position. The key is to have the right ideology and then try to get the army behind it.
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
1/15/2010 4:27:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
which leads to more control (because you can't run an effective army without control)
You can't lead an army without controlling the soldiers (who sign on.) Other than that?

which leads to leaders, states, taxes..
Well, this would be off topic except ya'll are lumping minarchy in here, which means that the first two are already assumed not a problem. And I don't see how it leads to the third.

I doubt "freedom-loving" people would be able to amass a big enough force to counter the army.
What makes them any different from the statist in this respect?

Even if there is, they wouldn't be organized and they wouldn't be armed. The CEO of the biggest company would have more wealth than everyone else
Everyone? As in he would have over 51% of GDP? That's an extraordinary claim.

and would have no problem amassing a small military as technologically advanced as the militaries of today. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles by the common folk wouldn't have much of an affect against such a force.
Common folk with rifles hiding in the woods wouldn't have much of an effect against the mighty redcoats.

Common folk with IED's wouldn't have much of an effect against the mighty US army.

Waitaminnit
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 4:32:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 4:23:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In other words, not an argument against the position. The key is to have the right ideology and then try to get the army behind it.

Oh, I'm not so sure anything thought this was an argument against the position. The point is that its nothing different from any position, which is contrary to how many of the high-and-mighty anarchists/minarchists/"freedom-loving" people act.

You, Ragnar, are one of those that are attuned somewhat to reality, which is why I doubt most had you in mind when typing these words. :)
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 5:37:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Minarchy: The belief that a socialist monopoly is required to protect the free market
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 5:45:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 12:31:06 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
We seem to have a few anarchists, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists but very seldom do we see an explanation or a defence of such a position.

I will try harder then.

Now am I right in believing that anarchy is the absence of external laws, and external coercion?

Anarchy has been defined differently by different people. The left-anarchists generally define anarchy as the absence of hierarchy wheres as right-anarchists define it as the absence of an organization that routinely commits acts of institutionalized initiatory coercion.

In which case how are interpersonal disputes settled?

Anarcho-Capitalists have no problem with free market arbitration services. I am not familiar enough with Left-Anarchist literature to give you their thoughts.

Property rights defended?

For anarcho-capitalists the answer is private defense services.

For Mutualist/Socialist/Communist anarchists, "Property ... it is robbery" - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 5:48:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 5:45:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
For anarcho-capitalists the answer is private defense services.

1. Free rider effect
2. Private army idea is ridiculous.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 5:55:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 5:48:24 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
At 1/15/2010 5:45:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
For anarcho-capitalists the answer is private defense services.

1. Free rider effect

Bryan Caplan to the rescue; he uses the term public good which is the type of good used as an example of a free rider effect:

1. For national defense to be a public good, the social benefits of its existence must exceed its social costs. (From the definition).

2. The social benefits and costs of national defense are the sum of all people's willingness to pay. (By definition).

3. On average, people's willingness to pay for their own physical security is higher than their willingness to pay to reduce the physical security of others. (My critical assumption, which I'll call Limited Malevolence).

4. If no country had national defense, people's average physical security would be higher than it is now, because the danger which any given country's national defense deters is attacks from the national defense of other countries.

5. Since the existence of national defense reduces people's average physical security (from 4), and people's average willingness to pay to increase their own physical security exceeds their average willingness to pay to reduce the physical security of others (from 3), the net social benefits of the existence of national defense are negative.

6. Therefore (from 1 and 2), national defense is not a public good. QED.

If you wanted to reduce my proof to a slogan, it would be: "National defense: If no one had it, no one would need it."

If textbooks were accurate, they would drop national defense as an example of a public good, and replace it with the abolition of national defense. Unfortunately, I fear that even the typical economist is too nationalistic and hawkish to take my proof seriously.

2. Private army idea is ridiculous.

Not needed.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 6:13:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 5:55:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Bryan Caplan to the rescue; he uses the term public good which is the type of good used as an example of a free rider effect:

1. For national defense to be a public good, the social benefits of its existence must exceed its social costs. (From the definition).

The benefits to me not dying + not having the fear of dying + the prevention of a nuclear holocaust + etc. > cost

2. The social benefits and costs of national defense are the sum of all people's willingness to pay. (By definition).

Incorrect, the social benefits are the social benefits. If I watch a fireworks display for free because I'm not taxed by the town, I still receive a benefit. I'm willing to pay nothing for a fireworks display however that doesn't mean I don't benefit from seeing one.

3. On average, people's willingness to pay for their own physical security is higher than their willingness to pay to reduce the physical security of others. (My critical assumption, which I'll call Limited Malevolence).

Incorrect. Physical security is a blanket effect. To have a police/fire force guard a town vs guard individuals is much more expensive and thus much less desirable. Not to mention that your assumption relies upon the fact that everyone is rational. People will pay little to no money for a personal police/fire force. Are you saying that if my neighbor chooses not to pay for a firefighter that her house will burn? If her house burns my property will decrease in value. Why should someone else's choice negatively impact me? Furthermore if my neighbor is murdered are you saying the police will ignore it? Why would I want a murderer loose in my neighborhood. Your argument fails on the basis of basic reasoning.

4. If no country had national defense, people's average physical security would be higher than it is now, because the danger which any given country's national defense deters is attacks from the national defense of other countries.
Agreed, however your rationale is that all countries are run by rational leaders who will drop their armies. Good theory, incorrect in practice. When you don't have national defense, and plenty of other countries do, your national defense becomes much less secure. This is incorporating terrorists who are motivated by insanity.

5. Since the existence of national defense reduces people's average physical security (from 4), and people's average willingness to pay to increase their own physical security exceeds their average willingness to pay to reduce the physical security of others (from 3), the net social benefits of the existence of national defense are negative.

See above your argument is easily negated.

6. Therefore (from 1 and 2), national defense is not a public good. QED.

If you wanted to reduce my proof to a slogan, it would be: "National defense: If no one had it, no one would need it."

If textbooks were accurate, they would drop national defense as an example of a public good, and replace it with the abolition of national defense. Unfortunately, I fear that even the typical economist is too nationalistic and hawkish to take my proof seriously.

No they're too realistic.

2. Private army idea is ridiculous.

Not needed.

Right, I'm sure no one would have any incentive to invade or harm a country, history shows that we as a society are peaceful. We're all simply being irrational. (sarcasm)
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 6:22:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 4:23:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Since you haven't stated any premises, I would presume this an empirical argument, except that there are no real examples of such a government.

It's common sense. In current tax system, taxes from everyone (including corporations and individuals) go into one pool which is then divided up for each service. This means that every service is funded for everyone with only a limited amount of taxation. With user fees, each service would need a separate user fee, which means that you would have to pay a lot for one service - and more for another - and so on. Corruption is given, as there are no checks and balances, nor is there an incentive not to be corrupt.

In the end, you lose your classical liberalism/socialism/moderate keynesianism/theocracy/fascism/??? whenever some guy amasses an army big enough to do whatever it is you didn't want to happen.

In other words, not an argument against the position. The key is to have the right ideology and then try to get the army behind it.

No... because there is already a monopoly on military, weapons, force, and power in the above systems.

What makes them any different from the statist in this respect?

Nothing, I was just quoting out the kind of people Volkov was talking about.

Everyone? As in he would have over 51% of GDP? That's an extraordinary claim.

Well, GDP has nothing to do with wealth. 51% of accumulated wealth or individual income is more appropriate. I don't see how it's an extraordinary claim - when there is no mechanism to stop monopolies, and there's no consumer protection agencies.

Common folk with rifles hiding in the woods wouldn't have much of an effect against the mighty redcoats.

They both had the same technology. This was over 200 years ago. The redcoats had a small army. The redcoats had an extremely hard time or resupplying themselves, because they were from overseas. The redcoats had terrible communications, because they were from overseas.

Common folk with IED's wouldn't have much of an effect against the mighty US army.

Except the US military isn't waging total war. If an army were trying to take over in an anarchist place, then common folk would get massacred and enslaved. The US military isn't trying to fight the common folk in Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 6:24:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 6:22:49 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/15/2010 4:23:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Since you haven't stated any premises, I would presume this an empirical argument, except that there are no real examples of such a government.

It's common sense. In current tax system, taxes from everyone (including corporations and individuals) go into one pool which is then divided up for each service. This means that every service is funded for everyone with only a limited amount of taxation. With user fees, each service would need a separate user fee, which means that you would have to pay a lot for one service - and more for another - and so on. Corruption is given, as there are no checks and balances, nor is there an incentive not to be corrupt.

Agree with nags not to mention the administrative fee's would be through the roof making it even more economically innefficient.

It's a great theory with little application in the real world.