You don't think people would resist? Or hire another non coercive agency for protection? Your last statement is full of oxymoronic fallacy.
I have to add, there is indeed coercions that may not be violent. If someone had incriminating photos of a political figure, for example, with a woman other than his wife, and used them to blackmail some money, that would certainly be coercion, and, perhaps if things got out of hand, might have a chance to become violent, but otherwise would probably not. (don't really think it changes the point being made, just thought it should be said...)
Oh dear, not the whole 'private tyrany' argument that's been debunked a million times already. Out of all the 'private tyrany' arguments that I've come across, this has to be one of the dumbest. Buying a tank and taking over a place will not be as easy as you think, with all the armed inhabitants of the area, you're also foregetting that there will likely be a defence agency protecting the area as well with the armed inhabitants. WTF do you mean that no one can intiate force against a person who is violently extorting people with a tank, how in your feeble statist brain is that type of extortion voluntary? Paying money to not have your house blown up is not voluntary in the least. Unrelated question how much asbestos do you eat a day?
Oh, that's right, when your arugment is shown to be full of holes, resort to name calling and asinine ad hominems. If it's a STATELESS SOCIETY, then who is this DEFENSE AGENCY that goes around and administers justice? Derp! If it's a civilian force, who is going to fund it? Derp! If it's a civilian force that goes around and asks for donations from local residents to protect them from the criminals, then they are using the threat of force by someone else to coerce people into paying. Derp! If it's a civilian force that funds itself to the point of being able to take out gangs of would be evildoers proactively, then put down the comic book down and look out your window and see how the real world works. Derp!
Never go fully retarded. You just did. Edited: Somehow it remind me of this... [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeI_f5_2lsw&feature=g-all-u&context=G2d8183aFAAAAAAAAVAA[/ame]
Civilians can voluntarily subscribe to protection services, or not. You still continue thinking government is the only way. http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/546694-competing-agencies-retaliatory-force.html Good thread on the topic, I actually might have defended your argument in this thread, I'm no sure but it might be the thread I finally gave up on te failed argument your attempting to defend.
If it's a stateless society, then you are obligated the right to act as your own defense agency and administer justice accordingly, if your liberties were infringed.
It would be kind of like a police force, except it would be funded voluntarily by people who want its protection. Derp? The civilians, like they already do. Derp? You assume people are going to be forced to pay? Lol, that's what governments do. Also it won't be funded by donations, people will be paying for a service, like all other services. Definite derp. Last I checked, police aren't very successful at all at proactively stopping crime, they just clean up the mess. Definite derp again. How can you honestly criticize ideas you don't even understand? (Oh, and lol @ "put down the comic book down" you're full of derpy fail in this thread bro)
Nah, I'd say legitimized coercion collapses. Their would be no veil of legitimacy for acts of coercion to be cloaked under.
What constitutes a collapse of society? It seems to me there is either a society or there is not. Society is merely a term of convenience used to described a collection of people, usually within a specific region, who tend to recognize similar customs. Societies may undergo change, or perhaps evolve to adopt different customs or migrate to different regions; but I'm not exactly sure what 'collapse of society' is supposed to mean outside of its extinction. Can you clarify?
I see a simple state as was originally intended as nothing but an agreement between people to protect each others' liberty, which is essentially what people here are saying should be done in a stateless society. So I think the problem arises around the semantic discussion around what is the state. The state, ideally, is us. The federal state as it was written into the Constitution was little more than a way for people to organize themselves and defend themselves from those who would seek to take their liberty. That is completely legitimate in my view. And if you are benefiting from that protection of liberty, yes, you should be obliged to pay for it. This is, IMO, unfortunately unavoidable. There will always be Hitlers, Stalins, etc, who seek to coerce others and gain power. I haven't seen evidence or compelling arguments to convince me that the organization of the state is not a necessary evil. All we can do at that point is do our best to constrain that power. As to the Constitution and its failure to keep statist power in check our morphing into something decidedly not in line with the Constitution, I think that implies there is another system that is impervious to corruption and perversion, and I don't think this is so. Any form of governance, even the lack of one, can end in authoritarianism. If a stateless society were not vigilant against those wanting to control others, they would also lose their freedom. So I don't think one can really point to the Constitution's history as a way to denounce its effectiveness; I think it just points out that any system, not maintained, will fail. Just my view of things.
The State is defined as the centralization of power and the monopolization of the use of force. Ideally, there is no State. Only that which is voluntary and consensual is legitimate. Compensation for services rendered is not what is in dispute. Those who identify as an-cap, for instance, do not advocate positive 'rights' or entitlements to the labor or products of others. It is not asserted that there won't be those who seek to do evil. It is asserted that, logically, knowing that there are those who will seek to "coerce and gain power", it is nonsensical to monopolize the use of force and institutionalize coercion and centralize power. Those who seek to do evil--those who seek to "coerce and gain power" will naturally gravitate toward or emerge within such monopolies and institutions. In effect, they've been provided with what they desire and need to realize their desires on a silver platter by the very subjects they seek to rule. Life is not without a sense of irony. Thus, it follows that the best way to mitigate against such people--to constrain such power, as it were--is to eliminate it entirely. If there is no power to be had, there is no power to be wielded. I do not see how this implication follows. As Spooner put it: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.†This is a statement of fact that does not necessarily imply anything about some supposed impervious system. But again, the best way to mitigate against corruption and perversion is undoubtedly the free market due to the inherent competition and ability to satisfy demand which it facilitates. This is a cornerstone argument used to advocate the free market, yet government is not held to this standard for some reason? This is logically inconsistent. It is nonsensical to willfully install tyranny for fear of tyranny. Why would a society who has made the conscious choice to reject statism cease to be vigilant against statism? Then you concede that its history tends to indicate a lack of effectiveness, yes? By what other standard may we measure the effectiveness of the Constitution if not by its practical history?
I fully warn you, I'm not willing to get drawn into wall-o-text debates over this. I'm done with two-part posts like I used to engage in, so I'm clipping to save room. Honestly going to try and address points I think are most relevant. I realize this, I am noting that it follows that if that state protection must be provided, forcing to pay for it is legitimate. I also realize that the premise is what is disputed, I'm just establishing this point. I never said it was. I'm saying that stateless societies are incapable of effectively handling those evils. I understand the point, I disagree with the conclusion. This may be true of internal grabs for power, but it ignores outside power. One has to protect from both. I don't think there is a good argument that stateless societies can effectively defend from outside incursions. The United States itself would not have survived were it not for intervention by a heavily state-controlled army, and we weren't even completely stateless, just loosely governed. When you are talking military, the more authoritarian it is, often the more effective it is. There's no discussion, there's action. Obviously, none of us want to live in an authoritarian military-state, and so a balance must be struck between effectiveness of defense and freedom. Otherwise, you risk allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. But it does. If you are saying the Constitution is a failure and doesn't work, it implies something else is needed (even a lack thereof). My point is that no matter what we go with, there is a chance of perversion. I think Constitutions/contracts are the best we've got with human nature. Even they can decay when the people not having their end of the bargain fulfilled don't pursue it. The world is not black and white. Yes, the free market allocates resources more effectively. In military, strategy and steering is necessary, and this is not something the free market is meant to adapt to, especially at the high rate of speed necessary for military action. You're begging the question here. I completely and utterly disagree with the characterization of a group of people coming together and forming an assembly with which they can defend themselves as tyranny. I reject your premise, and so the conclusion does not follow. Why would a society who made the conscious choice to found themselves upon the ideas of liberty and personal freedom cease to be vigilant against those incursions? It happened. It will happen again. People are forgetful, and easily become complacent. There is absolutely no basis or evidence in assuming people would be vigilant in such a system but not in others. This is why I find the argument uncompelling. I concede that every system may be subverted and used to benefit those who would wish to rule over others, and that this may be done even in a system that lacks organization. The Constitution as well as democracy is the worst form of government, except everything else that's been tried. It's a compromise between organization, order, defense, and liberty and personal freedoms.
I'm sorry but this is not the same thing. This is essentially social contract theory as opposed to voluntary exchange. The grocery store, for instance, doesn't presume to know what products I want to fill my shopping cart with and charge me for those products it has chosen for me. Nor does my grocery store retain 100% market share on the distribution of groceries. I'm not willing to concede that this is the case due to the lack of reasoning you've provided on this point, but for argument's sake, even if it were, this may also be accurately said of statist societies. You assume there would be outside incursions. Can you name even one instance of any country in possession of nuclear weapons being invaded by a foreign power? I can't think of even one. What is the single largest incentive for a foreign power to invade another country? Resources. A working tax structure, already in place, is the single largest and most easily accessible resource. A society which has come to reject the State on intellectual and moral grounds would not have such a tax structure, thereby completely eliminating one of the single largest incentives for invasion. Well, my objection was to the suggestion that it necessarily implies some "impervious" alternative; impervious being the operative word here. Saying that no matter what we do there will be a chance of corruption does not justify continuing to tolerate current failure and corruption. Did you sign the constitution? Did I? Did anyone alive today? Contracts are only binding to those who voluntarily agree to them. The constitution doesn't qualify as a contract at all. Spooner has pretty much covered all of this well over a century ago. Are you a military strategist? Should I simply take your word for it, or were you planning to provide even an attempt at explaining this position? This is at least the third time you've done this now, and I honestly do not mean to be rude, but it really drives me crazy. You do not refute a reasoned argument by simply asserting the contrary and providing no reasoning of your own. Moreover, this does not even address the point I raised. Apparently the free market is slow, and can't drive straight enough for defense because you say so. Brilliant. Nevermind the fact that it is asserted to be faster, more efficient, and more accurate in virtually all other areas relative to statist programs. That's fine, that's not what I've referred to as tyranny. This is just a straw man. Actually, society never made such a choice, if you're referring to the American Revolution and the installation of Constitutional government. I'm quite certain it was wealthy, white, male landowners exclusively making choices for everyone else without first consulting them. Liberty and responsibility go hand in hand. The more you have of the former, the more you get of the latter. Thus, it stands to reason, the less liberty a people have, the less vigilant they become due to a mitigation of responsibility and self-investment. This is basic institutionalization--as people become more dependent upon the State, they continue forfeiting more of their freedoms to it. I think this is demonstrably, logically, and historically evident. You keep referring to statelessness as a system. What system? If there is no State apparatus, there is no system. How can a system which does not exist be subverted, corrupted, and take over, exactly? That's fine, if you want to make that compromise, I do not want to prevent you from doing so--I'm not willing to put a gun in your face for disagreeing with me. All that I ask is you show me the same respect, as opposed to forcing me to abide by what you feel is a good compromise.
I apologize, I'm not seeing the pertinence to the discussion at hand. It isn't I that needs to prove it can't, it is others that must prove it can. And, as I said, I just haven't heard an argument yet that has convinced me of that. I'm not saying one doesn't exist, just that in my conversations and readings I haven't come across one. I'm certainly open to the possibility. Yes. Pretty confidently. Nuclear weapons have been around for a relatively very short period of time first off. Secondly, I have reservations that a stateless society can even effectively have a nuclear arsenal actually capable of being mobilized at a moments. I disagree with this on two fronts. A) That it provides any more incentive for a country to invade. B) That the moral/intellectual rejection is even reasonably able to resist imposition if an outside incursion does, in fact, occur. This doesn't make sense to me. So we should just keep rotating systems because the corruption de jour is unacceptable? My point is, if we accept that any system is corruptible, then it follows that all we can do is go with the best we can. One that is reasonably able to resist corruption and function. I don't think statelessness fits this bill. If you do, that's OK, all I'm saying is that I haven't been convinced. One is free to leave if they do not wish to follow the contract, and in that sense it is absolutely voluntary. If we kept people from emigrating, I think you'd have an argument, but we don't. Well, not to put too fine a point on it myself, but you are the one forwarding a very contrary position to what is widely accepted today. I'm not a military strategist, but I have done a lot (too much, actually) of historical studies, especially in military strategies and battles. It is generally pretty well accepted among historians that the more unquestioned control, the more effective the military. One of the few weaker points of a democracy and groups in general, is that things get done more slowly. Group communications 101. Obviously, this control runs contrary to what we want (freedom), so a balance is struck. I can cite historians both military and otherwise if you'd like, but I'm surprised if you see the need. This is pretty standard history, as I've been taught at any rate. Do you have a reason for thinking otherwise? No need to assume bad faith. If that isn't what you've said, I've misunderstood. One could say the same of a stateless society. If you didn't found it and didn't immigrate, you're born into it. I disagree with your assessment. As I said, if this is how you see things, that's OK, it just doesn't convince me. By imposition. Why do you think it can't be? What stops someone with enough power (presumably or not an outiside party) from imposing their will? As I see it, the only thing stopping it is the will of the people. And so we are back to the same old problem: vigilance is needed. This is all well and good for those who founded it, because they hold those ideas close to their heart and will likely die for it. But just as it did with the Constitution, people become complacent over time. I'm not convinced statelessness is any more likely to resist this. It seems to be human nature. I have no problem with you deciding not to abide by that. So why don't you leave if you don't want to abide by that contract? Isn't the very act of choosing to stay and live under that system an act of voluntarily choosing to abide by it? I guess this is where I'm getting a bit hung up. I understand it isn't optimal, but for the sake of practicality, I think it is a necessity. The contract must be applied to the entire land. You can either choose to abide by it and otherwise live as you will, or go someplace where the contract doesn't exist. Again, don't think I'm brushing your thoughts aside as silly or stupid. I see what you're saying, and I think you have some fair points, but I just haven't been convinced that the system you describe is feasible either to implement or to maintain over any significant amount of time. I think it is just as much of a Utopian impossibility as true socialism. Human nature gets in the way. At any rate, whether or not you do anything for it, Happy Easter. Taking a few puffs on my way to see the family.
sudo toke, how much research have you done on the concept of a stateless society? I think it's kind of silly to enter a discussion on something and take a side without having done at least a moderate amount of research (at least a few hours of reading and google-searching if not more) on opposing positions. If you're having trouble finding materials, I would start here: The Obviousness of Anarchy by Hasnas Introduction to a Stateless Society A collection of essays on this subject I would also note that mises.org is a great resource in general. Don't feel obligated to respond to these directly; however, you should be able to, at least, read some of the materials presented and entertain the idea that you're wrong.
This is invariably the last resort of all statist discourse in my experience. If I have not voluntarily agreed to a contract, I have no obligation to regard said contract; nor does said contract have any measure of just authority over me. What is even more ironic is I cannot even leave without the State's permission to do so.
I haven't arbitrarily taken a side without any knowledge on the subject. If I don't know something, please enlighten me because I really am interested in these sorts of things. I don't think I misunderstand how it is intended to work, I just am skeptical of it actually working. I'd certainly be interested to see it in action, at any rate. I have already said twice in this thread that I'm open to other ideas and solutions and hearing new arguments. What I am saying is those arguments haven't convinced me. I'm quite familiar with mises.org as well as cafehayek.com, and I'd like to think I've read quite a bit on economy, history, and political science. Look, when it comes to things like this, I firmly believe there is no right or wrong. There is no black and white. There are different ways of doing things. You think you've got the solution that works the best based off of what you know. I've got my Utopia that I think will work the best based on my knowledge and the many debates I've had on the subject. All I am saying is that the arguments I read did not convince me, and I'm explaining why. ... but you could still leave, correct..? I don't know what else to say. I think anything else is impractical. I have the same problem with anarchism that I have with socialism: It seems to me to be incompatible with human nature, and is impractical both to implement and maintain. I've not yet come across arguments that have convinced me otherwise. Certainly open to it, though, so feel free. Would you be OK with a system which would allow any citizen at any time to reject the contract and be deported from the State at its expense? If you then chose to stay under that system, would that then be agreeing to the contract de facto?