gigaplex: PeterWellington: While I don't agree that we need to have it "down to every last scrutinizing detail", I do generally agree with what you're saying. I know there's a ton of information out there on how various government functions would be replaced, but it's largely theoretical, and there's not much of a consensus on key issues. We've had stateless societies for brief moments in history, but a new state has sprung up every time. We haven't seen the theoretical market anarchy emerge and sustain itself. One way of looking at the world is we always have a free market. Right now the guys with guns are outcompeting us. People demand the state, they want the guys with guns. We need to figure out a way to outcompete the state and win customers. If you eliminate the current state, but people still believe in the state as a valid concept, they'll demand it again. It's time to start turning our theory into action. We need to start building out the types of companies we've been talking about. And I know it's hard, I'm working on a business plan right now for something like this, and it's very difficult to structure such a thing in anticipation of potential state interference. Well we'd certainly need to have it down to every last scrutinizing detail that the investor addressed and I imagine they'd be pretty scrutinizing :) I like that there is someone else here wanting to turn this theory into action. As you say, we currently don't have the level of detail that an investor would demand. So it is up to us to come up with those details if we want to make this a reality. I'm working these out too and I'll be posting a lot of this stuff in the future. I look at it as competition as well and this is how I see that going... If we got a company like this set up in a country where the government was a bit preoccupied or absent (there are many countries like this right now, especially in Africa), then a government would be seen by the company as just another competing business. The company would be forced to go to war with them or lose their business. If the company got big enough before that happened, we'd be set. A lot of these third world armies would be pretty easy to defeat. The UN/US might come in but if the UN/US destroyed these companies, those areas that the company did business in would go into chaos and the UN/US would be seen as an enemy. I think the business would have the upper ground as they could get a lot of the residents to fight for them. What's the UN/US going to do? Kill everyone and then install a government to rule over the dust? I think our odds are better than some might believe.
PeterWellington: While I don't agree that we need to have it "down to every last scrutinizing detail", I do generally agree with what you're saying. I know there's a ton of information out there on how various government functions would be replaced, but it's largely theoretical, and there's not much of a consensus on key issues. We've had stateless societies for brief moments in history, but a new state has sprung up every time. We haven't seen the theoretical market anarchy emerge and sustain itself. One way of looking at the world is we always have a free market. Right now the guys with guns are outcompeting us. People demand the state, they want the guys with guns. We need to figure out a way to outcompete the state and win customers. If you eliminate the current state, but people still believe in the state as a valid concept, they'll demand it again. It's time to start turning our theory into action. We need to start building out the types of companies we've been talking about. And I know it's hard, I'm working on a business plan right now for something like this, and it's very difficult to structure such a thing in anticipation of potential state interference.
While I don't agree that we need to have it "down to every last scrutinizing detail", I do generally agree with what you're saying.
I know there's a ton of information out there on how various government functions would be replaced, but it's largely theoretical, and there's not much of a consensus on key issues. We've had stateless societies for brief moments in history, but a new state has sprung up every time. We haven't seen the theoretical market anarchy emerge and sustain itself.
One way of looking at the world is we always have a free market. Right now the guys with guns are outcompeting us. People demand the state, they want the guys with guns. We need to figure out a way to outcompete the state and win customers. If you eliminate the current state, but people still believe in the state as a valid concept, they'll demand it again.
It's time to start turning our theory into action. We need to start building out the types of companies we've been talking about. And I know it's hard, I'm working on a business plan right now for something like this, and it's very difficult to structure such a thing in anticipation of potential state interference.
Well we'd certainly need to have it down to every last scrutinizing detail that the investor addressed and I imagine they'd be pretty scrutinizing :)
I like that there is someone else here wanting to turn this theory into action. As you say, we currently don't have the level of detail that an investor would demand. So it is up to us to come up with those details if we want to make this a reality. I'm working these out too and I'll be posting a lot of this stuff in the future.
I look at it as competition as well and this is how I see that going... If we got a company like this set up in a country where the government was a bit preoccupied or absent (there are many countries like this right now, especially in Africa), then a government would be seen by the company as just another competing business. The company would be forced to go to war with them or lose their business. If the company got big enough before that happened, we'd be set. A lot of these third world armies would be pretty easy to defeat. The UN/US might come in but if the UN/US destroyed these companies, those areas that the company did business in would go into chaos and the UN/US would be seen as an enemy. I think the business would have the upper ground as they could get a lot of the residents to fight for them. What's the UN/US going to do? Kill everyone and then install a government to rule over the dust? I think our odds are better than some might believe.
The Liberty Colony was started with the exact idea you have in mind. You can join the effort and find more information about it at www.libertycolony.com . What you and Peter Wellington will find with most of the intellectual elites on this forum and many others is that they are too afraid of the state to take action but are unwilling to admit it. Don't be discouraged, the intellectual elites can only criticize and usually won't help anyway. You are looking for the small group within the freedom movement that is willing to put the theory to test. Again, dont be discouraged, one of us is worth ten thousand of them. Feel free to contact me at the site.
Right on the money Peter. Don't be discouraged by the intellectual elitists on these forums. I started the Liberty Colony with the idea of putting theory into action. You can find out more information at www.libertycolony.com . Feel free to contact me via the site.
Maxliberty: PeterWellington: While I don't agree that we need to have it "down to every last scrutinizing detail", I do generally agree with what you're saying. I know there's a ton of information out there on how various government functions would be replaced, but it's largely theoretical, and there's not much of a consensus on key issues. We've had stateless societies for brief moments in history, but a new state has sprung up every time. We haven't seen the theoretical market anarchy emerge and sustain itself. One way of looking at the world is we always have a free market. Right now the guys with guns are outcompeting us. People demand the state, they want the guys with guns. We need to figure out a way to outcompete the state and win customers. If you eliminate the current state, but people still believe in the state as a valid concept, they'll demand it again. It's time to start turning our theory into action. We need to start building out the types of companies we've been talking about. And I know it's hard, I'm working on a business plan right now for something like this, and it's very difficult to structure such a thing in anticipation of potential state interference. Right on the money Peter. Don't be discouraged by the intellectual elitists on these forums. I started the Liberty Colony with the idea of putting theory into action. You can find out more information at www.libertycolony.com . Feel free to contact me via the site.
My, you certainly are a snide one. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, much to what seems to be your utter disregard, you have no idea how most individuals on this forum conduct themselves with regard to the pursuit of liberty. You have no basis to call us intellectual "elitists" without this information. Anything else is mere assumption. And if some libertarians wish to be devoted to intellectual pursuits over "action", and if this is what they're best at, you are doing nothing but to misdirect them and unjustly devalue their contribution. So quite frankly, I'd recommend you got off your high horse.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
Anonymous Coward: You still seem to be avioding the 'down to the last detail' bit of your original argument that you both didn't address and as I have shown is not the way the world works.
You still seem to be avioding the 'down to the last detail' bit of your original argument that you both didn't address and as I have shown is not the way the world works.
Actually, I have addressed the statement in question directly, at least 7 or 8 times by now with the direct quote even in my post. But let's look at my quote in more detail...
"If an anarchist cannot explain how their system would work in every situation asked of them down to every last scrutinizing detail then they would certainly not be able to come up with a viable business plan for a protection agency / insurance company to present to potential investors"
That's the quote. Now the context here is that the details would have to be presented to an investor. Notice I said "every situation ASKED OF THEM down to every last scrutinizing detail". I did not say, "every situation, down to every last scrutinizing detail". Now the only thing left to clear up is who I meant by "them" in "situation asked of them". I meant the investors that the entire context of this post was based on.
If my grammer, placement, etc. is wrong and has given you the impression that by "them", I meant some other group, then I am forever sorry and am clearing that up right now. I don't know what else I can do to clarify this. I don't think there is anyone that would think that writing out every second of every day of the future would even be possible. It's a strange assumption to assume that that's what a person meant even after they have told you that it is not. I think it is kind of ridiculous (and quite revealing) that a hissy fit of this magnitude is being thrown over this.
So clearly, I am not avoiding my statement as I have just dissected it in detail after talking about it through several posts. You on the other hand HAVE been avoiding the issue as I have clarified it. In fact, I don't think you have addressed it even one time this whole thread. Who's really the one avoiding things here? Given that, I can only assume that I am winning the argument by default since no one has shown up to debate it.
You presume that you've actually given an argument in the first place.
Nitroadict:Since when is being cautious & having a different opinion being an intellectual elitist? You are feigning heroics against the so-called "intellecual elitists" (Not sure who you are referring to; I'm suppose most of them don't agree with you though, so I guess they are "elitists" by default ) in a forum where the response to you and your Liberty Colony has been that of variety, not unviersal censorship and/or elitist rejection.
Feigning heroics, is that what taking action means? The intellectual elitists are those that continue to deny the reality of the state. The intellectual elitist thinks that just by discussing the matter the state will just wither away. Even the so called action of the intellectual elitists are just intellectual cover for doing nothing.
What most people on this forum are doing with respect to their pursuit of liberty ...is nothing. Let me be as direct as possible, I am flat out calling you out. Do you know why nobody knows what people are doing on this site with respect to freedom, because no one can point to anything anywhere that would indicate that activity.
If what you are good at is intellectual discourse and spreading information then admit that you have no intention of taking action. If not to anyone else but yourself. And admit that you are scared of the consequences of taking action so you are unwillingly to do so but don't pretend that you are taking action when you are not. This is the intellectual dishonest of the elitists in the freedom movement. If you truly understand that you are a slave to the state then to really advance your knowledge you must accept the reality of your current condition and then accept what you are willing to do about it.
Once you understand your position, then discussion of your position is no longer needed, only what you are willing to do about it. It is ok to admit that you are afraid of taking action because you fear the consequences. It is also ok to say that being a slave where you are isn't that bad. Understanding the reality of the situation is the first step in having any hope in changing it.
Maxliberty: Nitroadict:Since when is being cautious & having a different opinion being an intellectual elitist? You are feigning heroics against the so-called "intellecual elitists" (Not sure who you are referring to; I'm suppose most of them don't agree with you though, so I guess they are "elitists" by default ) in a forum where the response to you and your Liberty Colony has been that of variety, not unviersal censorship and/or elitist rejection. Feigning heroics, is that what taking action means? The intellectual elitists are those that continue to deny the reality of the state. The intellectual elitist thinks that just by discussing the matter the state will just wither away. Even the so called action of the intellectual elitists are just intellectual cover for doing nothing.
"Feigning heroics" was a referrence to your snobby demeanor, not a referrence to you "taking action"; despite my disagreements with some details of the LC, I still wish the best of luck & hope to see progress in it, as well as any other projects by others, that seek to translate discussion & debate into tangible results. Yet, you pretend as if you are being marginlized because you assume that those who participate on this forum largley do not do anything constructive, or "take action", outside of discussion & debate, and therefore, seek to activley "sabotage" those who take action. This is based on the fautly assumption & perception that this forum represents the end all be all of various activites of it's members, whom do nothing but talk, and hence must be State apologetics by default, because you cannot see what they are actually doing. Would you want surrvell- I mean, transparency, to remedy that situation for you? "The so called intellectual elitists are just intellectual cover for doing nothing."How is the LC coming along, anyway? Got more than 2 people dedicated to putting their lives into your hands? A definite location of where the LC will be? Pictures? A Budjet? You are in the same situation of "doing nothing" until I see evidence, as far as I'm concerned. You are a pompous ass, regardless of what you believe.
Maxliberty:I'm being smug because I'm doing something and none of the rest of you are. Nyah-nyah-nyah
That's what it looks like.
Maxliberty: What most people on this forum are doing with respect to their pursuit of liberty ...is nothing. Let me be as direct as possible, I am flat out calling you out. Do you know why nobody knows what people are doing on this site with respect to freedom, because no one can point to anything anywhere that would indicate that activity. If what you are good at is intellectual discourse and spreading information then admit that you have no intention of taking action. If not to anyone else but yourself. And admit that you are scared of the consequences of taking action so you are unwillingly to do so but don't pretend that you are taking action when you are not. This is the intellectual dishonest of the elitists in the freedom movement. If you truly understand that you are a slave to the state then to really advance your knowledge you must accept the reality of your current condition and then accept what you are willing to do about it. Once you understand your position, then discussion of your position is no longer needed, only what you are willing to do about it. It is ok to admit that you are afraid of taking action because you fear the consequences. It is also ok to say that being a slave where you are isn't that bad. Understanding the reality of the situation is the first step in having any hope in changing it.
Maxliberty doesn't approve, so therefore, it must be wrong. Spreading information, discussion, debate; that's all important, and you are only seeing that on the forums. The only intellectual dishonesty I see here is you blatantly ignoring the following:1.) What are forums usually used for? Uh, debate & discussion? 2.) Forums only represent a certain part of the process (see above). 3.) If there are only 1,000 members in a forum designated for, let's say, liberety & fighting the state, etc, is it logical to assume that out of about maybe a little over 300 million people in the United States, that those 1,000 somehow magically represent the rest (let's say, 200,000 libertarian and/or anarchists)? You are generalizing way too much. 4.) Living your ethics, or Living at all? Living while knowing full well the State is illegitmate, while trying to move more & more towards living your ethics, rather than play the game and live according to the state's laws? Some are in better positions than other's to live their ethics, and other's are not. Not everyone has the advantages of being MaxLiberty, apparently.
Maxliberty:If you truly understand that you are a slave to the state then to really advance your knowledge you must accept the reality of your current condition and then accept what you are willing to do about it. Once you understand your position, then discussion of your position is no longer needed, only what you are willing to do about it. It is ok to admit that you are afraid of taking action because you fear the consequences. It is also ok to say that being a slave where you are isn't that bad. Understanding the reality of the situation is the first step in having any hope in changing it.
Let me be as direct as possible, I am flat out calling you out.
And let me be as direct as possible: I could not give a damn. Not. One. Bit. All you're doing is coming off as an obnoxious fool, striking at windmills. I wonder if others think the same of you. I'm here to discuss ideas, and better my understanding of libertarianism; that is what fora like this are for (hence the windmill reference.) If this is a problem for you, I suggest you deal with it, and find a better use of your time than attempting to assume the role of an agent provocateur. Funny actually, because that'd make you a hypocrite - spending most of your time on fora when you should be engaged in activism!
Ok, so what "details" are you talking about? How would anarchy handle murder, rape, torture, natural disasters, war, disease, floods, famine, forest fires? What "details" ought we discuss then? I'm pretty sure everything has already been addressed by someone somewhere. But then the point of anarchy is to not "plan" for all of these details but lay out a theoretical and philosophical frame work that can be used to address these issues. The base of it all comes back to property rights and the protections thereof.
We know that we will need police services but we don't presume to know how they will come about or what form they will take once the market gets ahold of them. We can only suggest ideas of what they might look like, how they might function and what role they would play in the world. We cannot pretend to know what the market will make of them in the future. We can't know how the market would deal with something like, say, a massive flood.
So, please, if we have gotten you all wrong, tell us exactly what "details" we need to work out and what we need to plan for.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.