DASawyer:I guess my question is: what is the Anarchist's response, when outlaws (bandits, pirates, raiders, etc.) take over his town, and the people in the next town over say, "It's not my problem?"
Ever read The Lord of the Rings? There's a good example of militia victory in the last chapters.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Jon Irenicus: Do yourself a favour and open a text - a basic text - on free market defence, before spouting off ignorant nonsense like this, mmkay?
Do yourself a favour and open a text - a basic text - on free market defence, before spouting off ignorant nonsense like this, mmkay?
Are you talking to me? You could of at least refuted one of my points before you call me ignorant. I've also read about 1/5 of Hazlitt's Economy in One Lesson. Please point out the chapter where he defends an abolishment of government.
Who else would I be talking to? Not bothered to wade through that whole post, so if you wish to read up on the topic, give a book that actually concentrates on the topic a read, like For a New Liberty or The Market for Liberty or Democracy - the God that Failed or Anarchy and the Law or The Myth of National Defence etc. rather than issuing ignorant dismissals of a theory you've not taken the time to comprehend. Reading a 5th of a single (very basic) book in Austrian econ is nowhere near sufficient.
To darkness I condemn you...
Natalie: Ever read The Lord of the Rings? There's a good example of militia victory in the last chapters.
It's funny because Lord of the Rings was about the separate human groups uniting together, under one leadership, to fight off the big baddie.
Jon Irenicus: Who else would I be talking to? Not bothered to wade through that whole post, so if you wish to read up on the topic, give a book that actually concentrates on the topic a read, like For a New Liberty or The Market for Liberty or Democracy - the God that Failed or Anarchy and the Law or The Myth of National Defence etc. rather than issuing ignorant dismissals of a theory you've not taken the time to comprehend. Reading a 5th of a single (very basic) book in Austrian econ is nowhere near sufficient.
Given that I'm so ignorant, and my arguments were thought up in about half a minute, it shouldn't be that hard to refute at least one of them, right? Also, why should I, the all ignorant non-believer, bother wading through a couple hundred pages of a theory that can't refute half-minute thought up arguments when I could be doing something I know will be more productive, like finishing Hazlitt for example?
Or, maybe you could get a clue, provide arguments that show an understanding of the theory, and make your post worth my time. I don't have the need, desire or impulse to educate the lazy. Stop acting like anyone has an obligation to provide an understanding for you, read the books on the topic, then return with an informed opinion on it, rather than nonsense you pulled out of your rear, to put it delicately.
Since you feel you've merited a response, I'll supply one with as many asserted claims as yours had.
beowulflee:Even if you have a gun, I just need to shoot you once first to kill you. Then I can take your wallet. What's stopping me?
One shot doesn't always kill someone. You take a risk every time you go to shoot someone for what they have in their wallets, which may or may not be something you'd want. Someone who needs to resort to theft in order to get money isn't going to have a fun time when everyone around them who earns money peacefully is able to afford enough firepower to blow them half way to the moon. But if this situation is undesireable (being robbed, mugged, and/or killed), I dont see how open support of an authority which does just that is somehow showing opposition to thievery and murder. It is much easier to "get someone's wallet" by offering something they want in return for it.
Plus, it's doubtful that most people are indecent enough to go around killing each other, else there would be no reason it wouldn't be happening on a massive scale.
beowulflee:Competition between armed forces? Instead of competing for your money by offering better services, they might as well kill the other group to eliminate competition. Better yet, they'll just kill you and take your wallet.
Eliminating your clientele isn't really a viable business. And shooting or forcing your competitors to shut down is EXACTLY WHAT THE STATE DOES. If you're opposed to such an idea, it's hypocrisy to support the state instead.
beowulflee:Also, when YOU'RE the one paying the cops the most, they'll do everything in YOUR interest.
When there are thousands of small militia groups and defense agencies you would need to bribe in order to do something illegal (aggressive), that's not a very effective strategy. Someone who wanted to wage open and unprovoked war against someone else would end up fighting a guerrilla war with everyone who had a vested interest in preventing such a war. With no one to impose a tax burden on, they would quickly find themselves out of funds.
beowulflee:No one would want to pay for a standing army or military research during times of peace. The problem comes when you need it, it'll be too late.
We should also fund research against a Decepticon invasion. Wouldn't want to be too late on that either.
beowulflee:The fact that there is a police and that they are bound by LAWS acts as a deterrent against criminals.
Actually, they act under and according to "laws", however they are not bound by them, they are bound by courts who interpret the law and If the government adopts an "unlawful" policy, there's nothing binding them to act "lawfully" or with discretion other than open rebellion.
beowulflee:Anarchy protects you from the threat of 'the State" but creates threats out of EVERYTHING else.
Yes, everything just magically becimes malicious and vile if the state fairy isn't there to protect us.
Our argument may be dumbed down thusly:
The minor premise is true due to the unjustifiability of its negation, and I refer you to the corpus of literature on Austrian for the verity of the major premise.
Savvy?
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
beowulflee:It's funny because Lord of the Rings was about the separate human groups uniting together, under one leadership, to fight off the big baddie.
Wrong.
beowulflee: Natalie: Ever read The Lord of the Rings? There's a good example of militia victory in the last chapters. Also, a great example of a libertarian society. Hobbiton and the Shire It's funny because Lord of the Rings was about the separate human groups uniting together, under one leadership, to fight off the big baddie.
Natalie: Ever read The Lord of the Rings? There's a good example of militia victory in the last chapters. Also, a great example of a libertarian society. Hobbiton and the Shire
Also, a great example of a libertarian society. Hobbiton and the Shire
Fool, read it again. Watching the movies doesn't count. Pay close attention to the riders of Rohan, the militia will be revealed.
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
Sorry Natalie, still working out the quoting feature
I feel as though I should point this out every time the term is used. The concept of anarchy is a completely human idea, and does not exist anywhere. The idea of anarchy is complete lawlessness, this does not exist, not in human society or anywhere in the universe. There are laws regarding everything, even if we do not know them.
When there is a riot for example, there are laws that every individual subscribes to. For instance. in riots there always seems to be looting. Other people yell, others run, others throw things and become violent. I would assert the idea that if you knew every individual in a riot, you could easily predict what they would in fact be doing.
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. I am sometimes called and anarchist by people who hear my views of smaller government. In the "wild wild west", there was law and order, but it fell more onto the much smaller individual town societies to determine their set of laws and ordnance's. I think the study of concepts like spontaneous order are very important for this reason.
I apologize for the tangent.
Justin:The concept of anarchy is a completely human idea, and does not exist anywhere.
It exists on my property.
Justin:The idea of anarchy is complete lawlessness, this does not exist, not in human society or anywhere in the universe.
This is not the idea of anarchy. Anarchy. An-without, archy- rulers. I've never been able to prove a negative, but if you think you're up to it, by all means continue.
Justin:I would assert the idea that if you knew every individual in a riot, you could easily predict what they would in fact be doing.
assertions require proof.
Justin: When there is a riot for example, there are laws that every individual subscribes to. For instance. in riots there always seems to be looting. Other people yell, others run, others throw things and become violent. I would assert the idea that if you knew every individual in a riot, you could easily predict what they would in fact be doing. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. I am sometimes called and anarchist by people who hear my views of smaller government. In the "wild wild west", there was law and order, but it fell more onto the much smaller individual town societies to determine their set of laws and ordnance's. I think the study of concepts like spontaneous order are very important for this reason. I apologize for the tangent.
This writing does not flow well. I use to read aloud what I wrote. If it sounded crappy, I would rewrite it. Read some more of the threads, or search the site to get a better idea of what you are walking into here. There is much wisdom here. Good Luck
Saan: It exists on my property.
-------------------------------------------
I was following the web definition, which reads "a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)"
In this, I will not argue semantics of what a word means by its root versus what the broad understanding of a word is. That being said, you cannot argue that anarchy exists on your property under my definition, because the property is under your rule. Unfortunately, due to large government intervention, we are forced under the rule of our government via violence and fear of violence.
Also, I am not trying to prove a negative point of anarchy, as you have asserted, there is no known negatives to it. I am simply saying that, a place without laws governing it's constituents does not exist. In this case the laws governing your property, and I know I'm being redundant here, is the laws of your own making.
Saan: There is much wisdom here. Good Luck
There is much wisdom here. Good Luck
I do not haphazardly state these thoughts of mine sir, I do quite a bit of studying myself. I place much thought into something, and as I have had to combat being called an anarchist, this is the best argument I have come up with. My only issue with the term anarchist is the negative connotation it has placed upon it by a largely ignorant society. I do use this site as a resource, and I am grateful it is here. Also, I want to thank you for challenging what I said, I cannot live in a world where people do not challenge my thoughts. If for no other reason than to find holes in my own arguments.
Also, I am new to actually quoting anyone here, so if I messed it up somehow, I do apologize.
I wasn't intending to offend you. Just kind of giving a guide.
That is a questionable thing to say. In the grand scheme of things you might be reside in anarchy - meaning you have no rulers over yourself. But in the framework of your property you are a monarch - the single ruler. Unless, of course, you are in a joint ownership over property, in which case you would live in oligarchy.
JackSkylark:But in the framework of your property you are a monarch - the single ruler.
Strawman. I never said I rule over other humans on my property. Those present on my property exist without rulers. I do not coerce them in any way at all. I trade with them. I am not a monarch, nor in joint ownership would I be an oligarch. I am but a property owner, and in the case of joint ownership I am also only a property owner in association with another property owner. No law, no police, no regulations, just a deal for rent vs board.
How is this a Monarchy, or in the case of joint ownership, an Oligarchy. You are making an assumption that there will always be a monopoly of force, i.e. might makes right. So, yes Anarchy exists on my property.
Rohan was a pretty typical system of nobility whose personal armies could be called upon to serve the King. There were no militias in LOTR so far as I can remember (and I've got the Silmarillion, ho ho!). Even the hobbits had the constables who were paramilitary gendarmes empowered by the State.
Saan: Fool, read it again. Watching the movies doesn't count. Pay close attention to the riders of Rohan, the militia will be revealed.
Uhh... the Rohan militia was forced, a draft army. In this way, the army was more in line with the army of Switzerland. I see no 'free-market' here. What about the wars between the Rohan and the Dunland - these were surely not just wars of non-aggression?
The only Tolkein civilization closest to anarchy (in the broad sense) were the hobbits. But, even these were more like the germanic form of patriarchal fiefs than the autonomous freedom we associate with anarchy. The figurehead governments of the shire are just as dangerous as the absoulute monarchies of Rohan and Gondor.
But this is way off topic.
Saan:You are making an assumption that there will always be a monopoly of force, i.e. might makes right
This is an excellent point for me think on. As far as I can think of it on the fly, the only problem with that statement is the difference between you and government (and this is huge, LOL) is government by nature owns nothing and steals what it does have. You at least purchased your property in some form.
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