Don't initiate violence?

[tittiger]

I agree. Other peoples fear can be a ally. Even bullshit bravado sometimes works well to keep you from being beat up.

People thinking you are NUTS doesn't have to be a negative it can work to your advantage also I have found.

[Turd Ferguson]

I agree. Other peoples fear can be a ally. Even bullshit bravado sometimes works well to keep you from being beat up.

People thinking you are NUTS doesn't have to be a negative it can work to your advantage also I have found.

This is true.

Years ago, when I was in my early 20's, I sometimes had to walk through "Lower Wacker" to get to some of the businesses for the guy I did work for. If you know Chicago, Lower Wacker not a place you wanna go wearing a Rolex and a short sleeve shirt. Hell, the cops didnt even go there as far as I could tell. I never saw one. The best thing I found to keep myself safe was to act like I didnt give a fuck about anything, giving off the vibe of "I've fucking seen it all and im not the least bit shaken by anything" Always had homeless dudes asking for a few bucks, and have seen alot of them get really nasty with some people who were obviously tourists that had no idea where they were and saying NO to said homeless guy, all the while keeping their heads down looking at the sidewalk.......... big mistake. They fed on that fear cuz when the touristy type either said no, keeping their head down all scared like, or gave them a dollar, they would just ask for more shit cuz they could smell a victim a mile away. When they would ask me, I would say "Sheeeeit, you give me a fuckin dollar and I'll give you fifty cents" with a big smile on my face and crazy looking eyes. I'd get back something like "aint givin you no dolla, motha fucka" as they mumbled away in the opposite direction.


Its like a wild animal sometimes. They smell fear.................. you're fucked.

[alaric89]

Well thread, I'm back, just listened to the Wed 2011-1-5 show a bounty hunter called in. He was treated well.
Wanted to talk about force a bit. I was not aware until recently, how pro violence many were in the liberty movement. Not to police of course, but private enforcers, bounty hunters, guards and the like.
I find this uncomfortable. I am not afraid of these rent a cops or anything but I don't like the idea that a rich person can hire these sorts of filth to enforce their whims- contract or no. I know of incidences where these bastards would do anything to get the money- Breaking bones, torture, what have you. I even know of one enforcer who liked to show the mark pitchers of his children.
We have mutual friends. When I was told that story I told my friend to keep that dude away from me for both of our sakes.
In a voluntary society, if these sorts of methods are the only means of collecting money, then I am sure as hell am not on board.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Well thread, I'm back, just listened to the Wed 2011-1-5 show a bounty hunter called in. He was treated well.
Wanted to talk about force a bit. I was not aware until recently, how pro violence many were in the liberty movement. Not to police of course, but private enforcers, bounty hunters, guards and the like.
I find this uncomfortable. I am not afraid of these rent a cops or anything but I don't like the idea that a rich person can hire these sorts of filth to enforce their whims- contract or no. I know of incidences where these bastards would do anything to get the money- Breaking bones, torture, what have you. I even know of one enforcer who liked to show the mark pitchers of his children.
We have mutual friends. When I was told that story I told my friend to keep that dude away from me for both of our sakes.
In a voluntary society, if these sorts of methods are the only means of collecting money, then I am sure as hell am not on board.

Wait, it didn't occur to you till NOW that an ancap society has a shift problem?

The shift is essentially removing government from government and shifting it to private individuals. You gotta realize that the baggage with that is that people are social animals and we will have hierarchy in one form or another. Even with anarchy, and no government, there will be governance.

[alaric89]

Been listening to too many Anarchist lately I guess. They want a world where might and having no scruples is the most successful way to live, I didn't see it before because I was so caught up in my war with player hatred. I was on the fence, now I understand what side I am on. Minarchist, IE a small administrative government, there to protect property rights and accesses to said properties, with a heavy handed system of accountability.

[Fred]

WTF?

[BobRobertson]

The problem seems to me to be an assumption that without the threat of state coercion, people will coerce each other. The Hobbsian war of All against All.

What is forgotten is responsibility.

Violence is not the only way to "correct" bad behavior. Outlawry in an economic sense, that being "boycott". Bad debts means people refuse to do business with you.

Maybe someone would, but like underground bookies and loan sharks now, those are not the kind of people that it's healthy to do business with long term.

The "shift problem" ignores all the other ways that people have to interact other than violence. Did you beat up your grocer this morning?

No?

Why not?

[alaric89]

My problem is that many self proclaimed Anarcho Capitalist are defending bounty hunters here lately. I thought they wanted to use ostracism as well. They don't seem to mind privately hired guns now, and I doubt they will later. I think we will need a generation or two growing up with the NAP as a primary life philosophy before Anarchy will be realistically workable.*
I believe that a violation of someones person is worse than not fulfilling a contract, I agree with the blacklisting and ostracism. A person loans out money to a deadbeat he is a dumbass, losing the money is his punishment and it doesn't give him or her the right to use physical force. I have lost money to people and never felt a need to kick their ass, I just didn't loan them any more money.

* If someone truly understood the NAP they would know when self defense was permissible. In such a society, people would be sceptical of people who were secretive about their dealings.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

The problem seems to me to be an assumption that without the threat of state coercion, people will coerce each other. The Hobbsian war of All against All.

What is forgotten is responsibility.

Violence is not the only way to "correct" bad behavior. Outlawry in an economic sense, that being "boycott". Bad debts means people refuse to do business with you.

Maybe someone would, but like underground bookies and loan sharks now, those are not the kind of people that it's healthy to do business with long term.

The "shift problem" ignores all the other ways that people have to interact other than violence. Did you beat up your grocer this morning?

No?

Why not?

With or without governments, people will coerce others. Its not the nature of man, or anything. Most people are good. Its just that there is a small percentage of people who suck.

Its the people who suck that fuck with everyone else, impose on others, make private use of public goods, etc.

Its inevitable too. People will form hierarchies just naturally. A large enough group of people with a common goal, if not given any specific instruction to do so, will choose,a leader. It just happens. We're social animals, and there is no escaping that.

Call it entropy, call it what you will, but human nature will build organization. Groups will coalesce into larger ones, and make rules for behavior for themselves. See every voluntary human social grouping for an example. That means that people will always have governance in their lives, one way or another. Its inevitable.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Call it entropy, call it what you will, but human nature will build organization. Groups will coalesce into larger ones, and make rules for behavior for themselves. See every voluntary human social grouping for an example. That means that people will always have governance in their lives, one way or another. Its inevitable.

Hah...your reference to entropy reminded me of a line uttered in Summer Lovers, a bad movie (one of those R-rated movies where men and women simulate partying and sex a lot, but never actually have any sex) I saw on cable probably about 25 years ago.  It was "People are like gas...they expand to fill the space they are in. When there is not enough space, there is pressure."

Hah...the internets FTW: Summer Lovers (1982)

[BobRobertson]

With or without governments, people will coerce others. Its not the nature of man, or anything. Most people are good. Its just that there is a small percentage of people who suck.

So? All that means is that there will always be a need for security services and self defense.

And, sad to say, Lawyers. Or better yet, "experts in contracts, adjudication and mediation".

Its inevitable too. People will form hierarchies just naturally. A large enough group of people with a common goal, if not given any specific instruction to do so, will choose,a leader. It just happens. We're social animals, and there is no escaping that.

Again, so?

I also expect there will be churches.

That means that people will always have governance in their lives, one way or another. Its inevitable.

You're confusing "governance" with "government". Governance is a natural attribute of agreement, since one must govern their own actions in order to cooperate with others, and it works best to have agreed upon rules that everyone knows.

Government is the institution with the monopoly on the legitimate initiation of coercion. Without that legitimacy, a private person for example, the one who initiates coercion is assumed to be wrong.

There are natural leaders as well as natural followers. So long as coercion remains something that a leader can get "legitimately", those who crave power will gravitate to it.

Without the institution of "legitimate" coercion, those who use and advocate the use of coercion have nothing to hide behind.

"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . .
 [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection;
 they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that
 follow from authority....
 As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils,
 liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use
 of force except against the invader."
 --- Benjamin Tucker

Edit: I can also suggest this by Tom Woods, http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods161.html

[Diogenes The Cynic]

With or without governments, people will coerce others. Its not the nature of man, or anything. Most people are good. Its just that there is a small percentage of people who suck.

So? All that means is that there will always be a need for security services and self defense.

And, sad to say, Lawyers. Or better yet, "experts in contracts, adjudication and mediation".

Its inevitable too. People will form hierarchies just naturally. A large enough group of people with a common goal, if not given any specific instruction to do so, will choose,a leader. It just happens. We're social animals, and there is no escaping that.

Again, so?

I also expect there will be churches.

That means that people will always have governance in their lives, one way or another. Its inevitable.

You're confusing "governance" with "government". Governance is a natural attribute of agreement, since one must govern their own actions in order to cooperate with others, and it works best to have agreed upon rules that everyone knows.

Government is the institution with the monopoly on the legitimate initiation of coercion. Without that legitimacy, a private person for example, the one who initiates coercion is assumed to be wrong.

There are natural leaders as well as natural followers. So long as coercion remains something that a leader can get "legitimately", those who crave power will gravitate to it.

Without the institution of "legitimate" coercion, those who use and advocate the use of coercion have nothing to hide behind.

"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . .
 [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection;
 they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that
 follow from authority....
 As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils,
 liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use
 of force except against the invader."
 --- Benjamin Tucker

Edit: I can also suggest this by Tom Woods, http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods161.html

So, because people will form hierarchies, those groups will eventually morph into governments. 

I am also not confusing government with governance. Up above you can see that I used both terms. Lots of governance isn't fun either.

That quote is kinda retarded. Anarchy will give rise to the next despot. People suck.

[BobRobertson]

So, because people will form hierarchies, those groups will eventually morph into governments. 

Why? You make this assertion, but provide no basis for it.
 

I am also not confusing government with governance. Up above you can see that I used both terms. Lots of governance isn't fun either.

Your use of the terms interchangeably is what I object to.

That quote is kinda retarded. Anarchy will give rise to the next despot. People suck.

And you post on a forum dedicated to individual liberty....why?

[Diogenes The Cynic]

So, because people will form hierarchies, those groups will eventually morph into governments. 

Why? You make this assertion, but provide no basis for it.
 

I am also not confusing government with governance. Up above you can see that I used both terms. Lots of governance isn't fun either.

Your use of the terms interchangeably is what I object to.

That quote is kinda retarded. Anarchy will give rise to the next despot. People suck.

And you post on a forum dedicated to individual liberty....why?

History is the basis for my claim. Hamas is effectively the government of Gaza, and it morphed into that role. The Papal states are another example. Feudal Europe came from the collapse of Rome. Every power vacuum in history resulted in less individual liberty, not more. Every one. You think that the power vacuum you would like to see would be the exception. Ask yourself why it hasn't happened yet.

Fine, I may have used the terms interchangeably. I still hold that less government will lead to more governance. Most aspects of it I am aware of, and I don't mind.

I post it because I am pro-freedom. You are not. You want to enable some jerk to goosestep into our lives and tell us what to do, and I don't want to see that happen. You're just like a Bolshevik in thinking that if you want something badly enough, human nature will conform to let your vision happen. People will not change in basic ways to give you your political goal, and the history of communism should have shown you that.

[alaric89]

What would you suggest then, Dio?