Quote from: MobileDigit on Today at 12:52:53 PM
If humans are rational, then "governence" need not be with force, but can instead be with incentives.
That's a big 'if'. Humans are definately reasoning creatures, it is a hallmark of intelligence and what seperates us from the rest of organic life. But what do you mean by 'rational'? Many, many people are screwed up, damaged goods who don't always act with the rights of others in mind. Marxism is a rational doctrine builit upon false premises. Our premises are the rub and human history does not comment well upon most people's ability to think from sound principles. Heck, many people are dimly aware they have premises in the first place!
As for incentives, I think the threat of force is quite an incentive! Seriously, though, what kind of incentives do you refer?
Quote from: Highlander
I'm with you on the principles, but it seems reality and history say certain humans will always seek to deprive others of property, liberty or life, if it benefits them.
Quote from: MobileDigit
Abstractly, it is absurd to use the past to predict the future for things that have free will.
My quote does not comment upon the future, except the logical inference that, given human nature over all of human history, there is no logical reason to think it will change now or at all.
Quote from: MobileDigit
Only by starting with axioms and using deduction can you find the truth.
Axiomatic reasoning is indeed an excellent tool to arrive at almost certain truths, but has limits and cannot lead anyone to a Grand Unifying Truth!
Quote from: MobileDigit
Practically, it is absurd to believe that there must be only one monopolistic security force.
Quote from: Bastiat, The Law
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
Quote from: MobileDigit
Logically, the common force cannot aquire a right I have not given it, nor can it force me to pay for something I do not want.
Forgive me for imprecision, but by 'common force' I don't not intend to suggest 'only one' monopolistic force. Understand that common force is only moral because the collective is made up of individuals. I say that if I have the right to defend my natural rights (however derived or labeled) with force, there does exist a collective right to force, but only in the defense of those rights.
Also understand that I do think a standing army violates the above principles and we'd be better organized by member state militias, which would be best organized by county level militias, which all agree to submit to national authority depending on the local take of the threat to the nation. Kind of like the way utility companies all have cooperative agreements to recover from national calamities.
Quote from: Highlander
As for your issue of not forcing you to pay, I do wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, but the structure needed for collective force (eg, Armed Forces, Police) has to be financed somehow.
Quote from: MobileDigit
Why do you believe it must be supported with force? If it is something people desire, why do you believe they won't pay for it?
You make a fine point, so let me ask you. Suppose we have common defense and justice systems financed by voluntary contributions from individuals, corporations and local governments. You are now no longer forced to pay for something you do not want (central defense from foreign or domestic looters). No, you prefer to hire your own private security for local looters and think the anarcho-capitalist ambassador businessman will protect our collective interests abroad.
Informed persons in global commerce learn of an invasion plan by the authoritarian People's Republic of Whereizitstan, run by a die hard click of international Scientologists who cannot abide such a prosperous existance for their mortal Thetan enemies and are deterimined to conquer your land and put your prosperity to use in the name of L Ron! The militias you have not supported over the years are put on high alert. You live in a border state and the PRW army has massed on your border. Cooperative units from other federal states form under Federal Rules of Martial Unity and mass in your state on your border to repel the massing army. After a month long stand off and few minor skirmishes, the PRW finds the whole proposition too expensive and withdraws.
The massed PRW army is incontestable proof a threat to your life, liberty and/or property. The massed forces protected your lands.
Now the question: Do 'we' have a right to bill you for services rendered, since you didn't buy into the plan before the crises?
Quote from: Highlander on Today at 11:57:17 AM
So how does your ideal deal with threats such as these?
Quote from: MobileDigit
People will pay for it. And because of the competition inherent in a free market, it will be much more efficient and cheaper than a state army. As well, I point you to an article by Dr. Pogo (of
http://antistate.com).
No offense to Dr. Pogo, but I think some of it contains faulty premises based on ideals rather than reality.
Quote from: Dr. Pogo
Because we the anarchists aren't being led by a four star general of any kind, we can present as many fronts, strategies, and methods of attack as we can think of. The possible costs are as numerous as the very population itself: it's a free market of warfare.
What exactly does this look like in reality? How is it organized? Who is in charge? How do we handle the would be 'warlord'? This ideal you present very much looks like a feudal society! How do we insure justice for the weak from the strong? Are they not entitled to the same rights as the capable? Are they allowed to voluntarily colletivize for their own defense? How about in the areas they live? Can they colletively hire a security force for the territories in which the collective own? Can they elect a private board to manage the roads and personnel hired by collective contribution? If they do this, they self-govern and the apparatus to do so collectively is a state, is it not?