Could anarchy work in human society?

Ego:

If you have a rebelious attachment to the word "vigilantism", how is my system not "vigilantism" on the part of the fallback court? Think about it.

What do you mean by 'rebellious attachment'? Why do you put vigilantism in scare quotes? These words - vigilantism, legal system, state, etc. - have definite meanings. Your fallback court is part of a proposed legal system, by definition it cannot be construed as a vigilante organization. Think about it.

Your system proposes vigilantism as the legal solution when neither party can agree. How is that not part of the legal system? That's why I used quotes.

You, Brainpolice, and that guy with the long name are too caught up in labels (and whether a given label is good or evil); think about the concepts instead.

Ego:

I should add: you keep hammering me on my definition of a state: any organization that initiates the use of force. The whole monopoly business is useless: there have been hundreds thousands of times throughout history (including now) where two coercive organizations claim control over the same territory; that doesn't make them either one of them less evil than if the other weren't there. A better definition is to focus on what's truly evil: the initiating of force.

Sigh. Read the definition! A state is an organization that claims a territorial monopoly over the legal use of force and ultimate decision-making. We don't accept your idiosyncratic definition.

Ego:

Your system proposes vigilantism as the legal solution when neither party can agree. How is that not part of the legal system? That's why I used quotes.

False. I do not propose vigilantism as a legal solution when neither party can agree. By definition vigilantism is outside the law. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?

Ego:

You, Brainpolice, and that guy with the long name are too caught up in labels (and whether a given label is good or evil); think about the concepts instead.

This objection makes no sense. We are thinking about the concepts involved. You keep using them improperly.

False. I do not propose vigilantism as a legal solution when neither party can agree. By definition vigilantism is outside the law. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?

What happens when two parties can't agree upon a court? You can't say, "vigilantism", and then say, "oh, but I don't endorse it...".

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Ego:

I should add: you keep hammering me on my definition of a state: any organization that initiates the use of force. The whole monopoly business is useless: there have been hundreds thousands of times throughout history (including now) where two coercive organizations claim control over the same territory; that doesn't make them either one of them less evil than if the other weren't there. A better definition is to focus on what's truly evil: the initiating of force.

Sigh. Read the definition! A state is an organization that claims a territorial monopoly over the legal use of force and ultimate decision-making. We don't accept your idiosyncratic definition.

 

Ego:

False. I do not propose vigilantism as a legal solution when neither party can agree. By definition vigilantism is outside the law. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?

What happens when two parties can't agree upon a court? You can't say, "vigilantism", and then say, "oh, but I don't endorse it...".

I gave you three possibilities for what can happen if two parties can't agree on a court. I very well can say that one of them might be vigilantism and I very well can say that I don't endorse it. It's not part of the legal system, and no legal system is immune to some people choosing to go outside it and attempt vigilante justice (not even yours).

If you are going to ignore our arguments and simply repeat this question and your own arguments as if they haven't already been addressed, then there is no point continuing this discussion with you.

Ego:

If you have a rebelious attachment to the word "vigilantism", how is my system not "vigilantism" on the part of the fallback court? Think about it.

I've had enough of your sniveling.

Ego:

Why is that any better (and ultimately, any different) than multiple organizations and/or individuals doing the same thing?

What do yo mean 'better'?

I think you still fail to understand what a state is if you ask how a state is any different from multiple organizations or individuals doing the same thing.

Whenever an organization decides that it's going to initiate force and fight back against those who try to stop it, it's essentially no different from your definition of "state". I doubt I'm the only anarchist who recognizes the distinction of the "state" from other organizations is arbitrary (and is usually employed by leftists).

I'm getting very tired of this forum software... I think my response should be appearing shortly.

I won't be able to respond for a few days, but I'll leave the following as my last words: my proposal is no different than your proposal; I don't understand where your venom is coming from.

Under your proposal, what happens when the accused refuses to agree upon a court system with the accuser?

Either...

• some organization is going to come along and force the accused into something (and possibly fight with other organizations who want to do the same)
  
• or the accused will go unpunished.

If you can explain to me how that's different from my system, and if you could also explain how my system violates or prevents any free decisions (as I noted in a previous post), then I'll agree with you.

Danno:

That is all true. However what I was countering was that the notion that anarchy would be impossible because atm we can't get there from here or because we need to move thru minarchy first. That notion has no relevance what so ever on wheter anarchy can actually work or not.

Ego:

some organization is going to come along and force the accused into something (and possibly fight with other organizations who want to do the same)

Yes, people do have a right to use force against criminals.
There is no problem with forcing someone who have harmed me to be put on trial in the court i choose.

The fact that I might let him have a say on in which court to use at all is simply a curtesy I am offering. In the hope that this will reduce the cost of getting my compensation from this criminal and insure me against any misjudgment in what has happened on my part.

Ego:

Your system proposes vigilantism as the legal solution when neither party can agree. How is that not part of the legal system?

Zeddicus:

That is all true. However what I was countering was that the notion that anarchy would be impossible because atm we can't get there from here or because we need to move thru minarchy first. That notion has no relevance what so ever on wheter anarchy can actually work or not.

We can't get there tomorrow, but if there's no way to get from here to there, anarchy may as well be a census taker on the head of a pin, counting the dancers.

That we can't do it tomorrow, or that it's never been done, is no proof it wouldn't work.  When someone can come up with a tactic to deal with every conceivable contingency, and nobody can find a weakness or flaw, it becomes reasonable to believe that it could work, and it's time to get serious about planning a way to move in that direction.

Pretty much like the USA in 1776 - that was all theoretical, too - it'd never been done that way.  Had more of the populace, or the leaders, shared the vision, it may have worked.  Now we know what pitfalls must be avoided, and that's a plus.

Danno