Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  How do you enforce Anarchy?
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: How do you enforce Anarchy?  (Read 10875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
How do you enforce Anarchy?
« on: July 21, 2009, 04:00:46 PM »

It seems to me anarchy can't survive under a natural democratic system.  People will join together and use the power of their numbers to impose a kind of government on others.  So how do you stop that from happening? 

Do you only let in members to a territory who swear an oath to maintain it as an anarchist territory?  What if they won't swear to the anarchist oath, are you going to bar their entry?   How can you bar their entry and still have open borders?   

If people attempt to form a gang do you deport them?  Who deports them if you have no government?




Logged

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2009, 04:15:50 PM »

People can ban together all they want. When they start issuing me orders, I'll ignore them. If they attempt to use force, my DRO will act to protect me. At least, they'd better--that's why I'm paying them!
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2009, 04:34:34 PM »

Enforce your own freedom.

The hope with an anarchist state is that although people may band together to try and enforce governments, hopefully these groups will be small and many, instead of one big monopolistic gang, which makes

Ordinarily if a cop comes to your house to arrest you for tax evasion or another victimless crime, it would be insanity to try to defend yourself with violence, because as soon as that happens the manpower they can plow into catching you is overpowering.

However, assuming a lack of gun regulation leads to a well armed populace, it would be much harder for a small group to enforce this, especially if there where militia "neighborhood" watches.

I doubt it would take many would be communists getting shot trying to enforce their own state to discourage.

Of course this is all uncharted territory, as the instances of actual anarchy are isolated to a very small number of examples, or non depending if you count middle age Iceland or pirate islands, so saying "anarchy will definitely be taken over by government" is no more correct than "anarchy will definitely not be taken over by government"
Logged

raytom

  • Guest
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2009, 04:45:38 PM »

I think that is one of the inherit problems of anarchy.  In theory it is great but the realities of it are more than challenging. Will Rogers compared communism to prohibition.  ď Itís a good idea it just donít workĒ and I think the same comparison applies to anarchy as well.  Anarchy is always one argument away from things turning into ochlarchy. The Free Danes in medieval England was about as close to an anarchist system as has been tried. Unlike the English they had no serfs and all were free men. Each community was a little different with many having different laws and punishments for crime. During that time the concept of outlawry came in effect. The concept was simple. If you broke a law and disagreed with the punishment or refused it you were made an Outlaw, meaning you were cast out from the community and had no rights or protections under the law. Someone could take your property and even murder you with no recourse to them. An outlaw was relegated to having the same status as an animal. It was a very good deterrent from not accepting an order of the court. Of course then the main aspect of punishment was in making a damaged party whole. Restitution was the main feature of correcting wrongs.  Corporeal punishment factored in as well depending upon the offense which varied from community to community. The commoners had no prisons.

If such a system would work in our style of democracy is more than questionable. I say probably not. I donít think the majority of people would accept it particularly in an electoral democracy.  I personally donít favor electoral governments. I think sortitional methods are much more representative of the people.
Logged

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2009, 05:16:56 PM »

I personally donít favor electoral governments. I think sortitional methods are much more representative of the people.

Is that like proportional representation?
Logged

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2009, 06:09:13 PM »

WIT GUNS HAO ELSE SILLY
Logged

raytom

  • Guest
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2009, 06:10:02 PM »

Quote
Is that like proportional representation?

No. Sortitional from Sortition. I did not want to clutter the tread you started so I posted a good short primer on Sortition on the Hack free titled "Sortition". Hope you like it.

Several decades ago I was introduced to the concept but blew it off. Now I embrace it. Its one of those things I had to really think about. The more I thought the more I liked.
Logged

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2009, 06:14:03 PM »

Okay Raytom I will look it up and try and understand the concept.  I will try to not write it off with out careful consideration.
Logged

raytom

  • Guest
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2009, 06:16:15 PM »

Quote
Okay Raytom I will look it up and try and understand the concept.  I will try to not write it off with out careful consideration.

I have no doubt you will understand the concept.
Logged

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2009, 07:27:44 PM »

Before I get into the details of this post, let me point this out: the implication here is that the dozens of market anarchists on this site are too stupid or blindly dogmatic to have considered the objections herein, and yet have come to the conclusion that anarchy is the best way to organize a society. Even though these objections are so basic and obvious that it is impossible for us not to have encountered them, we are supposed to have been incompetent to address them, and so we are now being instructed by someone who is, by implication, far more capable an intellecutal than we.

I think that is one of the inherit problems of anarchy.  In theory it is great but the realities of it are more than challenging. Will Rogers compared communism to prohibition.  “ It’s a good idea it just don’t work” and I think the same comparison applies to anarchy as well.

First, an idea that doesn't work is not a good idea. Communism and prohibition didn't work because they are contrary to human nature. They are both expressions of the same fallacious idea: that people are too stupid and wicked to control their own lives, so some other people, who are necessarily also stupid and wicked, must be empowered to rule over them. It is extremely relevant to note that this is the very premise on which all justifications for the state are based.

Quote
Anarchy is always one argument away from things turning into ochlarchy.

Unfounded assertion. Please explain your reasoning.

Quote
The Free Danes in medieval England was about as close to an anarchist system as has been tried.

Actually, the Icelandic goūorū system, the Irish tķatha under the Brehon laws, the Pennsylvanian Quakers, and the American frontier were far more anarchic, as they had no monopoly state to organize them. The Free Danes did, even though it was limited in scope and power.

Quote
If such a system would work in our style of democracy is more than questionable. I say probably not.

And you'd be right. Democracy is entirely unsuitable to the protection of individual rights, as it is not based on any particular moral principles. In fact, it is exclusive to any moral principles whatsoever except for "might makes right". Or inversely, if a government were to be founded upon any moral principle (which by definition would attempt to describe an "ought" applicable to all persons at all times in any situation), any democratic power would inevitably lead to actions by the government which would contradict it, rendering such government illegitimate. Furthermore, if a people were capable of discovering moral principles in the first place, then they would need no organization of government to do so. In either case, democracy is incapable of rendering justice or protecting liberty, which are the only stated purposes of government in the first place.

Quote
I don’t think the majority of people would accept it particularly in an electoral democracy.  I personally don’t favor electoral governments. I think sortitional methods are much more representative of the people.

That doesn't make sortition a just or moral means of governance. All governments, representative or otherwise, are founded on the assumption that the very people who are incapable of ruling themselves must be empowered to rule others. This is a blatant contradiction, which is to say, objectively wrong. Which leaves the state-defender to categorize people into seperate classes of: the political order, who are assumed to be intellectually and morally qualified to control a monopoly on legalized violence; and everyone else, who are assumed to be too stupid and wicked to hold the same power.

This is also a blatant contradiction, as human morality is universal to all persons, making such categorization absurd. But even if it were possible to make such distinctions, the state-defender must empower the enlightened, morally superior class to choose themselves, as the intellectually and morally bankrupt masses are, by nature, incapable of choosing them. And here we run into further contradictions. All human experience has shown that leaders, either self-appointed or elected, disagree with one another. This means that only some of those capable to rule are, in fact, capable to rule. Which means that there must be a further distinction within the political order. Perhaps a hierarchy of good-ness and intelligence, which renders some more worthy of rulership than others. But since we, the wicked, dumb masses are incapable of determining their worthiness (because if we were not so incapable we would have no need of their rule), we must leave the better rulers to determine their own worthiness within their own class, and exclude others from the power which they must possess. Because since they alone are smart enough, good enough, and right enough to rule, they must have the exclusive power to do so.

So all arguments for government are, in fact, arguments for unilateral despotism. Of course, people know instinctively that this is falsehood. Yet they are not willing to face the opposite conclusion: that people are intellectually and morally capable of governing themselves, and of dealing fairly and effectively with the few who attempt to dominate others. Such a condition would be anarchy, after all - and the state-defender begins his argument from the assumption that anarchy is a bad thing.

So since the logical conclusion of liberty is rejected without examination, and since the logical conclusion of absolute tyranny is intolerable to the human mind and spirit, we instead live in a world of total moral contradiction. We have a little bit of democracy, a little bit of autocracy, and a nod and a wink to rights and justice. But in the end it leads to the same place that all moral inconsistency leads: a condition of "might makes right", which in practice is nothing more than slavery.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2009, 08:34:08 PM »

To the OP: anarchy would be self-enforcing, as the only way for it to come to an end would be the secret formation, violent assertion, and successful preservation of a political apparatus.

Consider this: for every violent criminal in the world today, there are thousands of people who have never, since the age of maturity, considered initiating force against another person. For every one of those people there are several who may consider it, but have overcome their juvenile, animal impulses to the point where they can control them. For each of those, there are several who are not pathological aggressors, but who respond to incentives that may lead them to violence.

In a free society, those incentives would be absent. There would be no black market. Justice would be an individual matter, and the costs associated with it would be borne individually. There would be no political barriers to participation in the market, so any talent, at any level of skill, would be profitable to a person willing to cooperate peacefully with others. Poverty would evaporate; differences in wealth would contract. And finally, every person who so wished would be armed, and have the unquestioned right to self-defense.

A person would have to be literally insane to be an aggressor in such a society.

So: Fewer than one percent of people have even the tendency to aggress against their neighbors; that is, to engage in the political means. Most of those would respond to incentives discouraging such behavior. What is left is a fraction of a fraction of a percent who would even try to construct a political apparatus - and they are the ones least capable of doing so by virtue of their inability to act in a cooperative and productive manner! Are you really afraid that they will become the government? I would hope not, because such a fear could only be decribed as a phobia.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

hellbilly

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6664
  • Pogue Mahone.
    • View Profile
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2009, 08:48:07 PM »


A person would have to be literally insane to be an aggressor in such a society.


Nah.. just persuasive.

I want to believe it's possible, but then I see loads of people who can't even seem to make coffee for themselves.
Logged
Give me Liberty or give me Meth!

"We are profoundly dissatisfied with pretty much everything but we canít articulate why, and are unable to offer any viable alternative." - Nathaniel Weiner

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2009, 09:18:50 PM »


A person would have to be literally insane to be an aggressor in such a society.


Nah.. just persuasive.

A quality which can be exploited toward the political means only where there is a political apparatus, of which there would be none in an anarchic society by definition.

Quote
I want to believe it's possible, but then I see loads of people who can't even seem to make coffee for themselves.

Intelligence has almost nothing to do with one's moral tendencies. And to the extent that it does, it is the less intelligent who are more likely to be direct aggressors. And they, by virtue of their mental deficiency, are hardly the sort of people who could pose an existential threat to a free society by forming a subtle, indirect form of aggression in the form of a political apparatus.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 09:24:45 PM by MacFall »
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2009, 10:46:05 PM »

Again we have a case where the wild scare scenario is given to libertarianism. Let's ask instead, "What if some group of people gains political power and then uses force to extort funds from the population at large?" Of course, this is exactly the situation as things currently stand.

You can't say you're fearful of what MIGHT happen under freedom, while accepting what ACTUALLY IS under statism.
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: How do you enforce Anarchy?
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2009, 10:53:57 PM »

You can't say you're fearful of what MIGHT happen under freedom, while accepting what ACTUALLY IS under statism.

And in fact, those very things are implied in the very definition of the state. So in implementing something fundamentally different from the state, we have only to gain.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  How do you enforce Anarchy?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 32 queries.