http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
You should watch this. EVERYONE!!
Great video.
I really enjoyed that, thanks
Your choices are either statism or nonstatism.
“Without law there can be no freedom.”
He is completely wrong about the definition of anarchy.
Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
And besides, no one ever runs screaming for more government nor ever has. Those that do are the few people who want to use it to rule over your freedom.
How would the market deal witha criminal?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
How would the market deal witha criminal?[/quote]
The same way the state deals with him except it would be more just because non-criminals would not be forced to pay for the crime. In fact only the criminal would pay and the victim would be recompensed.
If you are wondering more specifically it would probably be paid for by various forms of insurance. And without governmental regulation in the insurance industry it would probably be inexpensive enough for even “working class” people to afford it. Of course there would only be crimes against people and their property and no such things as victimless crimes like prostitution or drug use. Overall, there would have to be less crime just because the definition of crime would have to rewritten to reflect reality.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
How would the market deal witha criminal?
The same way the state deals with him except it would be more just because non-criminals would not be forced to pay for the crime. In fact only the criminal would pay and the victim would be recompensed.
If you are wondering more specifically it would probably be paid for by various forms of insurance. And without governmental regulation in the insurance industry it would probably be inexpensive enough for even “working class” people to afford it. Of course there would only be crimes against people and their property and no such things as victimless crimes like prostitution or drug use. Overall, there would have to be less crime just because the definition of crime would have to rewritten to reflect reality.[/quote]
Has such a society ever exsisted?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Has such a society ever exsisted?
[/quote]
Yes.
It exists now all around you. Just look past and ignore the part of your life where you have to deal with government intervention.
Anarchy is the natural order. It exists to the extent that individuals in society choose not to allow authoritative coercion in their everyday lives.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And besides, no one ever runs screaming for more government nor ever has. Those that do are the few people who want to use it to rule over your freedom.[/quote]
Isnt that what Obama and most of his supporters are all about, more and more government programs to fix everything? For lord sakes they even have a $5000 gubbamint rebate for the purchase of a new car.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Has such a society ever exsisted?
Yes.
It exists now all around you. Just look past and ignore the part of your life where you have to deal with government intervention.
Anarchy is the natural order. It exists to the extent that individuals in society choose not to allow authoritative coercion in their everyday lives.[/quote]
For the most part people are good and do not need any government intervention, but every once in a while you have a crazy person or a big company or wealthy person that goes bad and would be too much for the average person to deal with so you need the Gov. to step in.
I personally think if there were not a government to protect, you would have a country like Somalia, where might makes right. No laws and no one to enforce fair treatment.
I have never heard of a Society that did not make laws and enforce them and still be prosperous.
I would call you definition a well run government
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
Uh anarchy will only mean a bunch of warlords fighting it out. Unless it strictly enforces its “rules” which seems to go against the very definition of the word and does smack of socialism.
Please at least read an article on anarchism before making ignorant comments about it. It does not mean there are no rules, it means that all associations are voluntary.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
[/quote]
How so? That would mean that there would have to be an authority to decide which would not be a voluntary society – voluntary socialism cannot exist. I am unconvinced that anarchy is “inherently” socialist.
I actually agree with you about the term anarcho-capitalism because it is superfluous. In such a society only the market can direct voluntary activities thus it would have to be capitalistic, directed by the wants and needs and voluntary associations of free people.
[quote]valiant knight wrote:
Uh anarchy will only mean a bunch of warlords fighting it out. Unless it strictly enforces its “rules” which seems to go against the very definition of the word and does smack of socialism.[/quote]
the war lords would be enforcing their rules, that would be the only rules
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
[/quote]
That is of course a complete nonsense because in order to run and plan an economy you need quite a big government.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Anarchism is inherently socialist.
[/quote]
LOL! Wow.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Uh anarchy will only mean a bunch of warlords fighting it out. Unless it strictly enforces its “rules” which seems to go against the very definition of the word and does smack of socialism.
the war lords would be enforcing their rules, that would be the only rules[/quote]
Why is it necessary that there should be warlords in anarchic society?
Don’t you think in places like the US where people understand the concept of self defense and property rights it would be different? Look at places like Somalia that went from totalitarian government to anarchy. The only reason warlords are able to take advantage there now is because there wasn’t a large population of free property owners set up to defend themselves before the government melted away – in fact, the warlords are the people who were disenfranchised by the totalitarian system of government.
When people do not have property or are not allowed to have it they have no reason to beat back encroaching thugs other than when defending their own lives directly. Not only that but when there is no system of voluntary transfer of property there will be violence to negotiate it. Owning property and understanding property rights changes everything. Anarchy can only work when it is supported by a population that understands this.
That is why self defense should be the responsibility of free people voluntarily in the private sector – just like it was when the colonies overthrew George II. Otherwise people become too dependent on government and thus will willingly give up their own freedom for the illusion of security. Over time the notion of anarchy becomes too difficult to reconcile with reality – thus the discussions we have now about it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Uh anarchy will only mean a bunch of warlords fighting it out. Unless it strictly enforces its “rules” which seems to go against the very definition of the word and does smack of socialism.
the war lords would be enforcing their rules, that would be the only rules
Why is it necessary that there should be warlords in anarchic society?
Don’t you think in places like the US where people understand the concept of self defense and property rights it would be different? Look at places like Somalia that went from totalitarian government to anarchy. The only reason warlords are able to take advantage there now is because there wasn’t a large population of free property owners set up to defend themselves before the government melted away – in fact, the warlords are the people who were disenfranchised by the totalitarian system of government.
When people do not have property or are not allowed to have it they have no reason to beat back encroaching thugs other than when defending their own lives directly. Not only that but when there is no system of voluntary transfer of property there will be violence to negotiate it. Owning property and understanding property rights changes everything. Anarchy can only work when it is supported by a population that understands this.
That is why self defense should be the responsibility of free people voluntarily in the private sector – just like it was when the colonies overthrew George II. Otherwise people become too dependent on government and thus will willingly give up their own freedom for the illusion of security. Over time the notion of anarchy becomes too difficult to reconcile with reality – thus the discussions we have now about it.[/quote]
I think that war lord would rule because in Anarchy, there would be a power vacuume, and some one would fill it. I personally would protect my family as best, I could. But I do not have the ability to protect every body I love, because I can only be one place at a time.
I think Americans would do little more than most countries faced with bands of men that will rape your women and kill your sons if you do not comply. Yes you could go settle a score with some one that raped your daughter but then, if you die you leave all other members of your family venerable.
But I think the best way to approach the situation is band together , we may start a little militia , which we would have to pay. Then we need a tax to pay for the militia , their weaponry, probably a prison would not be a bad idea
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think that war lord would rule because in Anarchy, there would be a power vacuume, and some one would fill it. I personally would protect my family as best, I could. But I do not have the ability to protect every body I love, because I can only be one place at a time.
I think Americans would do little more than most countries faced with bands of men that will rape your women and kill your sons if you do not comply. Yes you could go settle a score with some one that raped your daughter but then, if you die you leave all other members of your family venerable.
But I think the best way to approach the situation is band together , we may start a little militia , which we would have to pay. Then we need a tax to pay for the militia , their weaponry, probably a prison would not be a bad idea
[/quote]
I am not convinced a power vacuum would exist someplace like the US because there are enough property owners compared to non-property owners that would act as a buffer check against an uprising. It becomes more of a problem as the disparity between the haves and have-nots gets larger. A large population of have nots have nothing to lose and thus you get situations like Somalia. Property owners on the other have have everything to lose and little if anything to gain. Heck, in this country it is so difficult for the haves to take advantage of the have-nots that the haves must use government to do it – go figure!
I also think that if government were to dissolve people would not just forget about laws and natural rights where they are already understood. People would still, for the most part, act courteously toward each other and respect each other’s boundaries. I don’t think government does anything for that aspect of humanity because it is instilled in us by our culture and not by government mandate.
I agree with you about banding together to help protect each other. That is exactly how voluntary society works – that is how it has always worked – with or without government pulling the strings.