Spideynw:Don't taxes result in a lot of people going to jail for selling plants? Yeah, I guess you do violate the NAP.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Spideynw:Majority opinion is irrelevant. The mob will not rule. As I keep asking, how will you enforce your dictates on your neighbors without a government?
The question isn't how will I enforce my dictates. The question is how are you going to deal with the mob? Do you think you are going to get a lot of support for child molestation? Do you think anyone will care that you claim to have it logically figured out that child molestation is ok? If I use your argument, not only can a person molest their own children but other peoples too, they can kill them, enslave them do whatever they want and it all fits in Spidey's little logical world because children can't give consent and somehow that is relevant to you.
Maxliberty:The question is how are you going to deal with the mob?
There will be no "mob". There will only be individuals.
Maxliberty:Do you think you are going to get a lot of support for child molestation?
I doubt there will be any support for child molestation. But I doubt there will be any organizations that will do anything about it either. The only ones who will do anything about it would be family, friends, and neighbors.
Maxliberty:Do you think anyone will care that you claim to have it logically figured out that child molestation is ok?
It is not about whether or not it is OK. It is about whether or not any organization or individuals will do anything about it. Given that it happens quite often now, and nothing happens, I doubt anything would happen in an anarchist society. However, I don't doubt that treatment of children would become better as people become wealthier.
Maxliberty:If I use your argument, not only can a person molest their own children but other peoples too, they can kill them, enslave them do whatever they want and it all fits in Spidey's little logical world because children can't give consent and somehow that is relevant to you.
Straw man. The parent is the owner of the child, and as such, if one harms another person's child, legally, the parents would have standing to bring a case against the violent person.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw:But I doubt there will be any organizations that will do anything about it either. The only ones who will do anything about it would be family, friends, and neighbors.
Yeah right those family, neighbors, and friends get together and form a mob and go over to your house. Why do you have the impression that no one is willing to do anything to stop child abuse or child molestation?
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Children are potential moral agents So, if there is no government, what are you going to do about me sexually molesting my child? What more do you need to know? I am not really concerned about the morality of it. People will do it regardless of whether or not you think it is immoral. I just want to know what you would do about it, if anything. The point I am trying to make is that none of us really know what would happen without a government. Or more rightly, that anything would happen. As someone else pointed out, nothing really happens in today's society. Generally speaking, it is almost impossible to find out someone is molesting his or her child. Regardless, a couple have said they would just try to make a big stink about it. I don't know how effective this would really be. It would just be hearsay. Another has said if he witnessed it, he would intervene directly. I don't know if he really would or not. We can only take his word on it. I have a family. I don't know that I would want to risk my families safety to intervene. I don't even know that the child's life would be better without her father, even an abusive one. In reality, what do most people do that know about someone sexually abusing his or her child? As far as I know, nothing.
E. R. Olovetto:Children are potential moral agents
So, if there is no government, what are you going to do about me sexually molesting my child? What more do you need to know? I am not really concerned about the morality of it. People will do it regardless of whether or not you think it is immoral. I just want to know what you would do about it, if anything.
The point I am trying to make is that none of us really know what would happen without a government. Or more rightly, that anything would happen. As someone else pointed out, nothing really happens in today's society. Generally speaking, it is almost impossible to find out someone is molesting his or her child.
Regardless, a couple have said they would just try to make a big stink about it. I don't know how effective this would really be. It would just be hearsay.
Another has said if he witnessed it, he would intervene directly. I don't know if he really would or not. We can only take his word on it.
I have a family. I don't know that I would want to risk my families safety to intervene. I don't even know that the child's life would be better without her father, even an abusive one.
In reality, what do most people do that know about someone sexually abusing his or her child? As far as I know, nothing.
I personally think your assumption is wrong that people would do nothing. An accusation alone (regardless if true or not) can destroy ones reputation in the community. Even without a government, one would most likely be osterized by the community. Depending on what the "group moral belief" was as to the accusation - one could face a beating or worse - death.
This common in many social groups (large and small). In the Navy, I witnessed a beat-down on a guy because he did something wrong. This was done by the social peers and the penalty was based on what the social group thought as to how bad his action was.
This happens in prisons - where one could say an anarchy enviroment exits. A pecking order and social acceptance runs the yard.
It only takes one person to point a finger and make an accusation - that alone could be damning. You don't even have to moldest your child, if the group believes you are - you will be subject to what the group deems as the proper punishment, it maybe nothing or you could suffer a massive beat down or even death.
Every day people take justice into their own hands!
What would I do about it?
Because I believe the Child may have a will, but may not have the power to enforce their will against your action. I would believe the child needs protection from abuse. Without government and depending on the facts/knowledge I have obtain, it would either be at the very least "known to others" and let the social group decide your fate or at the other end of the spectrum I would come over and give you a serious beat down and make sure the Child was OK.
There are too many variables in your case to give you an exact response.
As per Rights? In my view - you gave up your RIGHTS of protection when you VIOLATED the RIGHTS of others.
But what do I know...we all have opinions and they all stink.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." -Thomas Paine
Maxliberty: Spideynw:But I doubt there will be any organizations that will do anything about it either. The only ones who will do anything about it would be family, friends, and neighbors. Yeah right those family, neighbors, and friends get together and form a mob and go over to your house. Why do you have the impression that no one is willing to do anything to stop child abuse or child molestation?
Because no one really does anything about it now. Babies can't talk. And small children don't talk well. If they do, they don't have the mental ability to make a case. They probably don't even realize they are being abused, or are too scared to talk.
Prohobo:I personally think your assumption is wrong that people would do nothing.
I don't assume people would do nothing. I assume most people would do nothing violent, if they found out about it.
Prohobo:An accusation alone (regardless if true or not) can destroy ones reputation in the community.
And I definitely think this would occur.
Prohobo:Even without a government, one would most likely be osterized by the community.
Possibly.
Prohobo:Depending on what the "group moral belief" was as to the accusation - one could face a beating or worse - death.
One could be killed for having multiple wives. What is your point?
Prohobo:This happens in prisons - where one could say an anarchy enviroment exits.
No, it does not exist.
Prohobo:It only takes one person to point a finger and make an accusation - that alone could be damning. You don't even have to moldest your child, if the group believes you are - you will be subject to what the group deems as the proper punishment, it maybe nothing or you could suffer a massive beat down or even death.
Which would give cause to the family of the dead parent to bring charges against all who participated in the crime.
Prohobo:Every day people take justice into their own hands!
Which is why I keep asking what you would do. Because no organization would dare touch parents rights with a 100' pole.
Spideynw: Prohobo:I personally think your assumption is wrong that people would do nothing. I don't assume people would do nothing. I assume most people would do nothing violent, if they found out about it.
You are probably right - most would not. But that was not your question, it only takes one.
Spideynw: Prohobo:An accusation alone (regardless if true or not) can destroy ones reputation in the community. And I definitely think this would occur. Prohobo:Even without a government, one would most likely be osterized by the community. Possibly. Prohobo:Depending on what the "group moral belief" was as to the accusation - one could face a beating or worse - death. One could be killed for having multiple wives. What is your point?
My point is simple, the punishment would be deemed by either a government or those that decide to take justice into their own hands.
Spideynw: Prohobo:This happens in prisons - where one could say an anarchy enviroment exits. No, it does not exist.
With in the confines of the general pop - their is no government. Their is a simple gang/pecking order. You are subjected to the social group's rules. Sure there are supposed laws protecting inmates, but the irony is that they are already being punished by society so their is little more than society can do. The laws no longer apply to them - in their mind - and their actions and resulting lack of punishment reflect that. Which was my only point - one is subjected to the social groups laws.
Spideynw: Prohobo:It only takes one person to point a finger and make an accusation - that alone could be damning. You don't even have to moldest your child, if the group believes you are - you will be subject to what the group deems as the proper punishment, it maybe nothing or you could suffer a massive beat down or even death. Which would give cause to the family of the dead parent to bring charges against all who participated in the crime.
What's your point? You asked what would someone do? You did not ask about the ramifications of ones actions - you only asked what I/they would do.
Spideynw: Prohobo:Every day people take justice into their own hands! Which is why I keep asking what you would do. Because no organization would dare touch parents rights with a 100' pole.
Your question is vague and when one tries to answer - you don't seem to listen (read) their response. Please note that I had already previously answered your question "What would I do". Let me try again -
1. If there is NO government than you would be subjected to the social groups attitude, judgement, and punishment for the crime. In one community they might not care, some may a little more, and other may want to kill you. It all depends in what social group your are referring. In a prison yard you would be shanked for the smallest thing, while in another social group you may just be ignored. Who knows - what IS known is that their would be a reaction - we just don't know to what degree that reaction would be.
2. If there IS government than all you would be subject to the government's laws. It only takes a neighbor to make an accusation and child services would be at your door step investigating. From there who knows - no doubt that the neighbors would find out and depending on any particular mental stability of the neighbor you could be harmed. It does happen - that is an issue the Economist just reported on posting Sex Offenders data publically. Some offenders have been beaten and run out of communities.
3. What would I do? It is a hypothetical question.
a. With a government - if I had confirm suspicions I would notify Child Services, Police, and probably the neighbors to keep an eye on you.
b. Without a government - I may take matters into my own hands - depending on the circumstances.
If you want to ask a different question, like - "How would a libertarian ideals/view apply", "What is Child Rights vs. Parent Rights", "What cultural differences should be / should not be accepted in society", etc. I think you get my point.
Prohobo: Spideynw: Prohobo:Depending on what the "group moral belief" was as to the accusation - one could face a beating or worse - death. One could be killed for having multiple wives. What is your point? My point is simple, the punishment would be deemed by either a government or those that decide to take justice into their own hands.
Spideynw: Prohobo:Depending on what the "group moral belief" was as to the accusation - one could face a beating or worse - death. One could be killed for having multiple wives. What is your point?
And my point is that there is not government in an anarchist society, as such, it would be left up to individuals as to what they would do, if anything, about child abuse, whatever that is. My point is also that anything an individual does, that is not a parent of the child, would be considered a violation of the rights of the parents. You do not get to choose how you think I should raise my child.
Prohobo: Spideynw: Prohobo:This happens in prisons - where one could say an anarchy enviroment exits.No, it does not exist.With in the confines of the general pop - their is no government.
Spideynw: Prohobo:This happens in prisons - where one could say an anarchy enviroment exits.No, it does not exist.
Prohobo:The laws no longer apply to them - in their mind - and their actions and resulting lack of punishment reflect that.
Prohobo:Which was my only point - one is subjected to the social groups laws.
Prohobo:What's your point? You asked what would someone do? You did not ask about the ramifications of ones actions - you only asked what I/they would do.
Prohobo:1. If there is NO government than you would be subjected to the social groups attitude, judgement, and punishment for the crime.
Prohobo:2. If there IS government than all you would be subject to the government's laws
Spideynw: And my point is that there is not government in an anarchist society, as such, it would be left up to individuals as to what they would do, if anything, about child abuse, whatever that is. My point is also that anything an individual does, that is not a parent of the child, would be considered a violation of the rights of the parents. You do not get to choose how you think I should raise my child.
There is a big difference between how one chooses to "raise" a child vs. abusing a child. The question first is what do we deem as abuse.
As this is anarchist topic (my apologies for bringing government into it), I would say the debate is:
What rights do a child have?
I stand on my theory that the social group (in an anarchist society) will determine what those rights are and in one group the judgement/punishment would be different than another group. It will be dependent on the values of the social group.
Spideynw:You think you can have anarchy without freedom?
I believe freedom is mutually exclusive. You can have anarchy with or without freedom. I was only using the social group determining the rules in the prison yard as an example. Your freedom is not dependent on anarchy or government - but rather the social group that will oppose their will via their structural means.
Note: Please don't start with assumptions "You think", rather ask "Do you think" - as it implies you know what I think and/or taking my statements out of context.
Spideynw:You think prison, which lacks freedom, is comparable to anarchy?
I think I answered that, but yeah - it is a form of anarchy in that with-in their micro-society the rules are set by the general pop and the pecking order. However, that doesn't mean that anarchy in it's various forums could not flourish in other enviroments either. I would say that a prison yard's politics probably most closely resembles an anarchist form. To what degree is debatable, but interesting none-the-less.
Spideynw:You think in anarchy one would be subject to some kind of social group laws?
Of course, regardless of government or none-government - we would always be subject to the Alpha and the social groups values. How they judge and/or enforce any of those judgements is not known - unless we know the values of the group.
I would not expect that a society could live without values and without value judgements that would have little to no impact on those the live within that society, regardless of anarchy or structured government. Even in the animal kingdom we live with in the social rules that govern the group based on their value. Different - yet the same.
Spideynw: You don't think the ramifications of ones actions would affect what one would do?
You don't think the ramifications of ones actions would affect what one would do?
Yes and No. One's actions are either premediated or not. Proof that ramifications have little impact on society is our ever expanding prison population. Of course if one can sanely measure the ramifications before their actions, they may revise their actions. However, there is a percentage of the population that acts without regard to ramification. There is also "reactionary" force - meaning one takes action because they are driven by fear, greed, shame, hate - all without rational expectations of ramifications. Domestic violence reeks of this type of "reactionary" action.
Yes - to the sane person that is not driven by "reactionary" process.
No - to the rest.
Spideynw: Prohobo:1. If there is NO government than you would be subjected to the social groups attitude, judgement, and punishment for the crime. How? Why?
I explain that above - you are always subjected to the socials groups value and what they will deem as punishment and enforcement of that punishment. On an individual basis - you have no control. It only takes one to take action that they can justify based on their own moral code.
Spideynw:Again, you just keep ignoring the fact that me harming my child is not injurious to you, as such you have no standing in a court.
Wrong. You are clueless and stubborn. As soon as you initiate aggression on someone in X manner, you have no coherent argument against anyone proportionally using aggression against you based on X. That is libertarianism's singular law.
Assuming that private police (PDA) follow the law and don't leave themselves open to punishment themselves, they stand to profit from capturing you. When an individual makes a contract with a security firm, they will be agreeing to give the "costs of capture" aspect of proportionality to the police/penal system. You keep saying that nobody will care if you rape your child but this is laughable. People overwhelmingly oppose child abuse, and a fair number are brave enough to serve as police plus happen to like making money.
Spideynw:I hope this article helps you: http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_5.pdf
What specifically am I supposed to get out of this? I didn't notice any blatant errors, but the author's explanations are lacking. For one, he ignores the likelihood of preexisting agreements between various individuals and PDAs.I highly suspect that people will choose PDAs that don't give peace treaties to pedophile-defending PDAs.
Spideynw:Is it possible to rape a 2 year old? I think it is only possible to touch them sexually. Maybe insert some really small object in them.
It seems to me like a newborn could be raped, but hey, I flunked out of sex ed.
Spideynw:Strawman, I never said people would not hire other people to help them. But maybe you will stop avoiding my questions. How are PDA's going to resolve the dispute between people that believe women should be able to have abortion's and people who do not?
First of all, you said once something like "PDAs will not flourish", but this was just a semantics problem. Second, you seem to visit here regularly and I do not. You didn't respond for 2 1/2 weeks. It also seems clear that you either don't understand what I have already written or are just obstinate.
As I said before, you are not ready to consider cases like abortion until you grasp the basics. Perhaps some portion of society will cut off the hands of women who have abortions. This is not compatible with libertarian law though.
Spideynw:And given the privacy of your home, I probably would never know that you did it. But for arguments sake, I will assume that I somehow find out about it.
"Nobody will ever find out" fallacy again?
A mother peeks into a door and sees her husband raping her child. She's seen Pervhunt Inc.'s ads offering rewards for evidence leading to convictions of pedophiles, or perhaps she just finds the actions deplorable. She sets up a hidden camera in her home and reports the crime.
The child of a single father happens to get checked out by a doctor who discovers anal fissures. The careless father has left DNA on his child's underwear. Pervhunt stakes out the father's house and recovers matching DNA from Daddy's beer cans.
These types of crimes do go unpunished now more than they should or would in an anarchic society following libertarian law. The situations I gave are quite plausible, so consider them for more than "argument's sake".
Both forks of your "parent's rights"/pro-pedophilia hissy fit have fallen far short. My economic crystal ball gets a bit cloudy on issues like abortion which are actually divisive, when you ask, "What will happen?". When you ask, "What actions ought to be punishable under libertarian law?", it is clear that, by following logic, eviction ("abortion") is lawful and child rape is not though. You are a disingenuous or confused pseudo-libertarian to insist otherwise.
Spideynw: Why would anyone hire a PDA that would not guarantee their parental rights?
Define "parental rights" or give a coherent objection to my definition already given.
The error with your perversion of the concept of rights is that when children don't have a certain amount of negative rights, you don't either when you are asleep, passed out drunk, in a coma, etc. There are "parent's rights" but they only exist beyond the limit (note the difference between 'limits' and 'bounds') of children's rights.
Spideynw:So Juan, how is a baby/small child supposed to bring a case to court against its parents?
Raping children is inconsistent with "owning" (being a guardian of) them. I'd still like an argument against my contention or else please fucking stop posting. I can, in essence, homestead the unowned child and bring charges against you given I possess sufficient proof. I now have guardianship of your child and its benefits, while you chip away at ore in a penal colony to pay restitution.
Spideynw:Sounds like mob rule to me, which, if that is "libertarian" to you, is definitely not libertarian to me. Then you do not understand what libertarianism is. Because in a stateless society, there will be no mob to enforce your dictates on others.
Then you do not understand what libertarianism is. Because in a stateless society, there will be no mob to enforce your dictates on others.
Mob rule is democracy. Nobody buying your toilet water popsicles is a free-market message to you that your product blows. Libertarianism encourages the flourishing of diverse people, so long as they can adhere to the non-aggression principle, AKA not fucking children, not taxing people, and not being a socialist pedagogue.
Snowflake: **He's using ethics to mean libertarian ethics i.e. NAP style. Everyone else on earth supplements their moral code with subjective judgments which while they cannot be shown to be universal, are just as important to agents as the objective ethical guidelines. I would violate the NAP to stop child molestation.
To me, "child molestation" means having sexual acts with pre-rational children. These kids simply can't consent to the acts and their initiation, in spite of the child's objection or indifference, in no way contribute to the child's progression to moral agency.
Snowflake:It was a joke. What i'm trying to get at is that the NAP isn't the most important thing to people, that they'll hold some of their own subjective ethics higher than libertarian ethics. This will cause the anarchic state to deviate from libertarian law.
Let's have some specific examples or let's not because they are tired. All human rights are in natura property rights, stemming from logical adherance to the NAP. We can accept the existence of terribly confused and violent individuals like the average American voter, spidey, "pro-life Libertarians", "left-Libertarians", cultural marxists, etc.
Yes, there will be deviations but there is no reason behind supporting them. I think that my friend told me that she's expecting a yield of .3 oz./ton of gold from a new mine. There's still no worth to dirt as pretty as pyrite .
By the way, here is your local pedophile's right advocate everyone.
DUCWIDT Bro? It is perfectly fine under libertarian law to go around preaching socialism or that child rape is acceptable. People might find out who you are and publicly shame you though.
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
Prohobo:I stand on my theory that the social group (in an anarchist society) will determine what those rights are and in one group the judgement/punishment would be different than another group. It will be dependent on the values of the social group.
And this would simply be mob rule, not anarchy.
Prohobo:You can have anarchy with or without freedom.
Then you do not know what anarchy is. Prisons are run by governments. In prison, there are police, the enforcement arm of government. Prisons are not anything like anarchy.
Prohobo:Note: Please don't start with assumptions "You think"
A question is not an assumption. That is why it is a question.
Prohobo:Of course, regardless of government or none-government - we would always be subject to the Alpha and the social groups values.
That is not anarchy. That is democracy.
E. R. Olovetto:Wrong. You are clueless and stubborn. As soon as you initiate aggression on someone in X manner, you have no coherent argument against anyone proportionally using aggression against you based on X. That is libertarianism's singular law.
The NAP is not the same as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
E. R. Olovetto:Assuming that private police (PDA) follow the law and don't leave themselves open to punishment themselves, they stand to profit from capturing you.
No they don't. My PDA will stop them.
E. R. Olovetto:You keep saying that nobody will care if you rape your child
On the contrary.
E. R. Olovetto:People overwhelmingly oppose child abuse, and a fair number are brave enough to serve as police plus happen to like making money.
It is irrelevant what the majority think, unless they act. But there is no reason to believe they would.
E. R. Olovetto:I highly suspect that people will choose PDAs that don't give peace treaties to pedophile-defending PDAs.
And as we have gone over multiple times, no one would hire a PDA that would dare to suggest they can dictate to the parents how to treat their children.
E. R. Olovetto:A mother peeks into a door and sees her husband raping her child.
Of course a mother would have the right to prosecute the father. THE CHILD IS JUST AS MUCH HERS AS HIS. Where in this whole thread have I ever suggested the other parent cannot prosecute for abuse?
E. R. Olovetto:She's seen Pervhunt Inc.'s ads offering rewards for evidence leading to convictions of pedophiles,
And then there would be the organization offering protection services from such an organization...
E. R. Olovetto:The child of a single father happens to get checked out by a doctor who discovers anal fissures. The careless father has left DNA on his child's underwear. Pervhunt stakes out the father's house and recovers matching DNA from Daddy's beer cans.
And the father has hired Pervhuntprotection to prosecute Pervhunt for violating his property.
E. R. Olovetto:These types of crimes do go unpunished now more than they should or would in an anarchic society following libertarian law. The situations I gave are quite plausible, so consider them for more than "argument's sake".
They are completely implausible. You envision a world of mob rule. There is no reason to believe such would be the case.
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: Why would anyone hire a PDA that would not guarantee their parental rights? Define "parental rights" or give a coherent objection to my definition already given.
The right to do with your children as you please, as long as both parents consent to the treatment of the children.
E. R. Olovetto:The error with your perversion of the concept of rights is that when children don't have a certain amount of negative rights, you don't either when you are asleep, passed out drunk, in a coma, etc.
When I am asleep or passed out, that is a natural state of being, and does not give someone the right to do anything to me. If I am in a coma, then someone else has to take responsibility for me and make decisions for me, otherwise I will die. Just like babies/small children have to have someone take care of them or they will die.
E. R. Olovetto:There are "parent's rights" but they only exist beyond the limit (note the difference between 'limits' and 'bounds') of children's rights.
A baby/small child is unable to provide for his or her defense. As such, they do not have any rights.
E. R. Olovetto:I can, in essence, homestead the unowned child
Just because you do not like how I treat my child, does not make the child unowned. So no, you cannot homestead the child.
E. R. Olovetto:and bring charges against you given I possess sufficient proof.
Again, it has nothing to do with how you feel about how I treat my child. Otherwise, using your logic, if I do not like how you treat your pet or property, I can homestead it and bring charges against you.
E. R. Olovetto:I now have guardianship of your child and its benefits, while you chip away at ore in a penal colony to pay restitution.
No, my protection agency countered your protection agency. You just spent a lot of money and lost.
E. R. Olovetto:Libertarianism encourages the flourishing of diverse people, so long as they can adhere to the non-aggression principle,
You live in just as fantastical a world as the statists do. You do not understand reality. In order to bring about anarchy, we only need about 5% of the population, at most, to stop obeying the government, at which point the government will cease to exist. There will be no NAP that everyone will philosophically understand. What will encourage the flourishing of humanity is simply having enough of humanity unwilling to being extorted and enslaved. The rest of humanity will simply get to enjoy the fruits of their disobedience.
E. R. Olovetto:You didn't respond for 2 1/2 weeks.
It is mentally draining to address all of the fallacies being presented to me. I took a break.
Spideynw: And this would simply be mob rule, not anarchy.
If we define anarchy to mean the absence of rulers or the removal of political power, then, while notably preferable and consistent with libertarian ethics, anarchy is not directly achievable by the removal of the state. Anarchy becomes void in the instance of any property violation because some outside influence is exerting illegitimate power. Now once the property rights are resolved (if ever) then there can be anarchy again.
We must differentiate between the absence of government and the state of anarchy. In the past, the majority of, if not all, periods of time when there was a distinct and sudden absence of government - there was not a state of anarchy. In fact, quite the opposite quite commonly occurred. Regarding child molestation, the proper question should be "has there been a loss of anarchy by the act of molestation?" I would think that by using the word molestation, as is commonly understood, you have answered that question already. Then we can come to the question of how anarchy can be perserved.
Spideynw: Prohobo:I stand on my theory that the social group (in an anarchist society) will determine what those rights are and in one group the judgement/punishment would be different than another group. It will be dependent on the values of the social group. And this would simply be mob rule, not anarchy. Prohobo:You can have anarchy with or without freedom. Then you do not know what anarchy is. Prisons are run by governments. In prison, there are police, the enforcement arm of government. Prisons are not anything like anarchy. Prohobo:Note: Please don't start with assumptions "You think" A question is not an assumption. That is why it is a question. Prohobo:Of course, regardless of government or none-government - we would always be subject to the Alpha and the social groups values. That is not anarchy. That is democracy.
I find it interesting that your responses and statements seem to try to illiciate an ad hominem retort. You certainly don't address any of the points I make, but decide to pick-n-choose snippets of text and make very rudimentry assumptions.
I did not offer a definition of democracy or anarchy, nor attempted to. What I was stating is that REGARDLESS of government, no government, anarchy, or any structured/non structured society - we will ALWAYS be subjected to the social groups values. How they determine those values and enforce those views are different.
As per prisons, you should probably re-read what I wrote, rather than just snippet out items that you want to respond to.
I understand a question is not an assumption, however you phrased them as a retorical question - thus you made an assumption as to what I think.
I would like to debate the topic, but you don't seem interested in debating and continue to repeat yourself. You didn't address any of my points, but rather decided to pluck out assumptions. Thus the only logical conclusion is this thread will become a circle or your are trolling for responses.
I don't doubt your abilities or that the original question's worth discussing, I just think this is going to be a long war of dribble until one tires of being showered with your responses. Hence my quick retreat before I am sucked in even deeper to this Kobayashi Maru!
Prohobo:What I was stating is that REGARDLESS of government, no government, anarchy, or any structured/non structured society - we will ALWAYS be subjected to the social groups values.
Then you do not understand a society in anarchy. Anarchy will completely protect the rights of the minority, even down to the minority of one. In anarchy, people will not be subject to social group values. There will be no overriding government to enforce its dictates on people. The only thing there will be is dispute resolution. That's it.
E. R. Olovetto:By the way, here is your local pedophile's right advocate everyone.
Would you prefer a youtube debate?
deleted
Spideynw: Prohobo:What I was stating is that REGARDLESS of government, no government, anarchy, or any structured/non structured society - we will ALWAYS be subjected to the social groups values.. Then you do not understand a society in anarchy. Anarchy will completely protect the rights of the minority, even down to the minority of one. In anarchy, people will not be subject to social group values. There will be no overriding government to enforce its dictates on people. The only thing there will be is dispute resolution. That's it.
As I get sucked back in....
Ugh! - again you do not read and assume I don't understand anarchy. Additionally your argument has been made to support every forum of government.
Example:Communism will completely protect the rights of the minority, even down to the minority of one. In Communism, people will not be subject to social group values.
Questions (I can assume that you will not answer and instead make trolling statements as you see fit):
1. You state, "Anarchy will completely protect the rights of the minority..." - Question: WHO will COMPLETELY protect those rights?
2. You sate, " In anarchy, people will not be subject to social group values." Question: How does Anarchy somehow erase the moral values of both the individuals and society?
[sarcasm on] I can only conclude that by that statement ("not subject to social group values"), that you are referring to a city of Zombies that are non-reactive to emotion or moral values. Thus they are blindly forced through instinct to perform in a robotic fashion.[sarcasm off]
While you might understand Anarchy, you certainly don't want to consider social ramifications, phycology, or socialology - which I find amusing at best.
Please let me transport out of this.....
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap