Are You A Hypocrite?

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

What happens when there are no laws?

Let's look at human nature we are friendly and nice as long as everything is going smooth. What would happens when it doesn't. Only the strongest would survive so say goodbye to grandma. This is what anarchy really is the strongest fighting to stay alive one more day. I notice it is usually idealistic young people who embrace this idea I believe it is mix of stupidity and ignorance.

Anarchy is worse then fascism because in fascism the weak at least stand a chance.

You didn't read the OP and you are off topic.

This article is about anarchy, not chaos.

Can roads and public works be created and maintained entirely by the private sector?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Aim64C

 

That's not what you said.

Pretty much, it is exactly what I said, in a far more condensed manner.

I explicitly said in the OP that violence in defense of self and property is justified, to include other people as well goes without saying.

If "my people" need more land to grow crops to feed themselves and a peaceful resolution to acquisition of property cannot be found - you know what kind of action I'm already resolved to. I'm not deluded to think that "defense" is as simple as protecting someone from another person with a violent intent. "My people" need resources - resources that others need, as well.

The point being, that if you believe violence is only justified in self-defense, then you must necessarily be an anarchist.

No, I'm not that deluded. Again - "defense" is not as simple as protecting people from gangs of marauders, packs of wolves, or uniformed soldiers. "Defense" means killing you to take your food out of practicality or expedience. Granted - in today's society under today's conditions and economy, such actions are not at all necessary or worth the effort.

I am not an anarchist - it is simply not possible for people to exist without forming social networks and governments for organizing and focusing community efforts. I am, however, not a hypocrite for being for reduced government. My loyalties are to the well being and function of the people I care about. I see reduced government restrictions as conducive to their well being and function. I do, however, see some restrictions as beneficial and even necessary for their well being and function - as such, I support those.

That is the reality of anarchy. I will have my loyalties and you will have yours. When the needs of our chosen loyalties collide - violence is the likely outcome. Each of us will see it as "defense" and each of us will see it as necessary. In the end - the strongest, smartest, and/or luckiest survive.

And that is what I mean by only those with the power to make things happen have the right to make decisions. Sure - I may be able to take out half of the local police force on my own or lead an armed revolution with effectiveness - but I have placed my power in the vote. Since my power backs the vote, gives that vote power. Since I agree with a law or government - it gives that law/government power.

I have made the decision that the vote still works - and that the government is still necessary. So have many others. Our 'might' has made that 'right.' It was not the power of any ideology that brought our system into existence.

Originally posted by Aim64C
If "my people" need more land to grow crops to feed themselves and a peaceful resolution to acquisition of property cannot be found - you know what kind of action I'm already resolved to.

The point being, that if you believe violence is only justified in self-defense, then you must necessarily be an anarchist.

No, I'm not that deluded. Again - "defense" is not as simple as protecting people from gangs of marauders, packs of wolves, or uniformed soldiers. "Defense" means killing you to take your food out of practicality or expedience.

So you are in favor of using violence to acquire resources.

At least you aren't a hypocrite.

Most people frown on that kind of behavior.

Then there is always that possibility that the guy you are going to conquer actually has the ability to shoot back. At which time things generally get very nasty.

reply to post by mnemeth1

So you are in favor of using violence to acquire resources.

There's a difference between "you have something I want, *bang*" and being resolved to taking something by force if demanded by failed negotiations or practical limitations.

I am resolved to such actions. Not exactly in favor of.

Most people frown on that kind of behavior.

They can frown all they want to. It's not a popularity contest.

Then there is always that possibility that the guy you are going to conquer actually has the ability to shoot back. At which time things generally get very nasty.

I'm a good shot. I'm also not stupid - everyone has to sleep some time. If they have a chance to realize their life is in danger before it's taken - I screwed up.

If I'm going to kill someone over resources the last thing I should do is appeal to a 'fair fight.' This isn't an anime fight scene - you're not fighting/killing for entertainment purposes.

And as much as you want to believe a peaceful anarchy is possible - it is not. Nor does being "evolved" constitute being able to live under such a system. Living things will always form specific groups and loyalties - those groups and loyalties will conflict and war will be the result. The only reason more animals don't have war on the scale of human beings is because of their smaller social networks and conflicts that usually involve only two members. Bees, ants, etc are far better examples of wars in the animal world.

Presuming one could hit a "reset" button and instantly place human beings in a state of relative anarchy, individuals would begin fighting with each other. Before long, social networks would form as would concepts of mutual defense. As these networks grew, differences of opinion and destructive behaviors would emerge and require the creation of mutual agreements on laws regarding behavior. Soon, people would need to be employed to enforce these laws.

Before you know it, there is 'someone taking money from you with a gun pointed at your head.'

reply to post by Aim64C


That does not necessarily have to happen.

What we see occurring more often than not are people paying for protection services by virtue of location, but not in the manner of a formal state.

The early mid evil ages are a classic example of this.

People would work the fields of a lords manor in return for protection and what amounts to court services. The key here is that people were highly mobile and the manors were very small little "kingdoms" if you want to call them that.

So if some lord went nuts demanding 10% of a workers yield, the worker could simply pick up shop and take his labor to the next nearest manor.

This high degree of competition between manors kept the people relatively free and safe.

This ended basically around the time of the French Revolution. The large nation states we know today did not come into play until the money system was corrupted.

Of course, with our modern knowledge of rights and money, there is no reason why security could not be established by private police and private courts that are funded through subscription fees rather than by coerced taxation.

Given that we know a bureaucratic apparatus and written laws are not required to have a peaceful and just society, it is entirely reasonable that contractual obligations and common sense administered by private organizations could maintain the peace and uphold property rights.

A voluntarily funded government is subject to market forces.

If they behave badly, they will lose funding.

And since they are voluntarily funded, they will only be concerned about upholding laws that pertain to property rights. People will not be willing to pay to put some Jooze seller behind bars.

Is it possible for someone who engages in a voluntary transaction to exploit the other?

Hoppe explains who the real exploiters are.

reply to post by mnemeth1

A voluntarily funded government is subject to market forces. If they behave badly, they will lose funding.

Well, I think its also very likely that they will gain more funding and resources by violent extortion and threats, thats how mafia works, give me your resources for exchange for "protection". Classic example is Taliban - why are local ordinary afghans supporting it? Not becasue they agree with its ideology, thats really a small minority. Only from fear. Anarchy would NOT work with ordinary Joe who just wants to live his life. It would require some hypothetical "Human 2.0"

reply to post by Maslo


Private security firms go out of business and start up in business all the time.

Further, I've never heard a story about a private security firm running around the streets of America robbing people - however, I have heard stories of cops doing this.

Since this never happens now, its ridiculous to think it would happen if private security firms took over from the police.

In fact, that's what half of America is demanding happen right now with Airport security. Private airport security was a million times better than the TSA at their jobs.

If you believe that it is wrong to take that which does not belong to you by threats or by force, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite. If you believe that it is wrong to use violence against people who have harmed no one or damaged anyone else's property, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite. If you believe that the only justifiable use of force is in self-defense or in defense of one's property, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite. If you believe people are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite.

I dont believe it. If someone is so poor that his basic needs are not met, then I believe it is better to violently take from the rich (and average) and give it to the poor, under some conditions (redistributing just a small part of richs wealth, and the poor has to do something too, if he wants the welfare - work, no procreation, etc.

Think about it - Not providing urgent help while being able to do it easily IS threating (withholding excess resources you have while others need them to save their lives and you dont is certainly threatening their live).
Right to live is more important than right to property, so if those two come into conflict (you seem to think they never do, but thats simply false), right to live wins. Stealing is perfectly moral if the other alternative is death or lifethreatening condition. Thats why for example hospitals have to treat patients in lifethreatening conditions, even if they dont want or would suffer a financial loss doing so (in effect, stealing).

reply to post by mnemeth1

Further, I've never heard a story about a private security firm running around the streets of America robbing people - however, I have heard stories of cops doing this.

Ever heard of mafia and gangs?

Since this never happens now, its ridiculous to think it would happen if private security firms took over from the police.

Since it happens now, it is reasonable to think it will happen in anarchy, even more because of the absence of state police.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Of course, with our modern knowledge of rights and money, there is no reason why security could not be established by private police and private courts that are funded through subscription fees rather than by coerced taxation.

The difference is that people who cannot pay the fee would have no security. So again, this system would not work for very poor, and also for very rich, who would be able to afford a private army, therefore setting laws that they want, independent of middleclass private subscription courts. Might makes right.

Anarchy is always only temporary, before the most powerful fraction in a society beats the others and establishes the only natural system, as millenias of history teach us - dictatorship.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Further, I've never heard a story about a private security firm running around the streets of America robbing people - however, I have heard stories of cops doing this.

Ever heard of mafia and gangs?

Since this never happens now, its ridiculous to think it would happen if private security firms took over from the police.

Since it happens now, it is reasonable to think it will happen in anarchy, even more because of the absence of state police.

The mafia is not a private security firm hahahhah good lord.

Private security firms are used every day and provide high quality security without problems all over the country.

Every day armored truck drivers transport money armed.

Every day night club and casino security manages the peace inside private establishments.

Every day armed guards protect banks and other assets.

Private security is superior in every way to police.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Private security firms are used every day and provide high quality security without problems all over the country. Every day armored truck drivers transport money armed. Every day night club and casino security manages the peace inside private establishments. Every day armed guards protect banks and other assets. Private security is superior in every way to police.

Private security firms are armed mafia that chose to adhere to state laws (because the state is mighty) and provide services to other private entities only in bound of state law, in exchange for cease-fire with the state. If the state dissapears, the incentive of security firms to limit its use of power also dissapears, and they become unlimited private armies of the rich (mafia), since thats where the max profit and least danger is - in accordance with the laws of free market.

Originally posted by Maslo
Private security firms are armed mafia

LOL

I would say this is true of the police, not private security.

Private security has to worry about customer satisfaction, where as the police are accountable to no one.

reply to post by mnemeth1

LOL

I would say this is true of the police, not private security.

Private security has to worry about customer satisfaction, where as the police are accountable to no one.

LOL, nice way to dodge the rest of the post. Substitute armed mafia with whatever you want and reply again.

Police are accountable to the government, and the government is acccountable to the people through elections.

Private security is NOW accountable to the customer AND the governement, in anarchy it would be accountable ONLY to the customer. There is absolutely nothing preventing a wealthy customer to impose its absolute will upon the less wealthy through hiring more and better equipped private "security firms". Wealthy customer would be pleased, and thats all that matters.

In anarchy, might makes right, and in anarchocapitalism, money makes might (right).

reply to post by Maslo


The police are accountable to themselves, and if charged by themselves, they face the courts. The courts are accountable to no one either, yet both depend upon each other and are paid from the same source of revenue.

The very nature of the system itself makes it impossible for the police to be held to the same standards as common citizens.

There are entire websites filled with volumes of articles on police brutality and abuse of power.

There are no websites dedicated to private security guards abusing their power or going on violent rampages.

The police are the problem, not the solution.

reply to post by mnemeth1


www.schneier.com...

The police are accountable to themselves, and if charged by themselves, they face the courts. The courts are accountable to no one either, yet both depend upon each other and are paid from the same source of revenue.

Both police and courts are accountable to the government, and government is accountable to the citizens.

There are entire websites filled with volumes of articles on police brutality and abuse of power.

And there are even more websites filled with brutality of private armed forces, and thats now, when the police fights them.

There are no websites dedicated to private security guards abusing their power or going on violent rampages.

I have already explained it in the above post - the only thing preventing for-profit security firms to become private mercenary armies enforcing the absolute will of the rich is that they have to respect the laws of the state in order to have a cease-fire with it, because they are simply weaker now. Disband the state, and the laws of the free market ensue that they will be serving those who pay the most and where the risk of well armed and well funded opposition is the least, every rational mercenary would do that.

Contrary to popular opinion, anarchy does not mean lawlessness.

Exactly. It means the most powerful entity sets the laws at will.
Laws only mean something if you have enough money and resources to enforce them (more money and resources than those who disagree with them).

It is impossible to have a just and free society if some men are more equal than others.

Funny that you mention it. In an anarcho-capitalist society, those with money and power are more equal than those without money and power.