Anarchy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.
[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the important question here: Can a North Korean sit on his porch and drink coffee?[/quote]

Of course it is ignored cause America sucks sooooo badddd. Those HOV fines probably help pay your government salary Nick…

62

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Those HOV fines probably help pay your government salary Nick…[/quote]

I doubt it. I can’t think of any HOV lanes around here. However, other wrongs certainly do.

63

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.
[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the important question here: Can a North Korean sit on his porch and drink coffee?[/quote]

Can a Somali occupying a failed state, and hence an anarchic environment, do so?

64

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think that laws against crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, stealing, etc… are vital to a functional society.

But all the stupid little laws such as vehicle registration, driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time, “expired” government ID, laws governing sexual behavior, etc… In Virginia, it is ILLEGAL to tickle women… Yes, there is a law against it. All those stupid, little, death-by-a-thousand-cuts laws that suck the juice of freedom right out of you are the ones I can do without. We didn’t vote for them. The state has forced them upon us with their bloated bureaucracy.

Take the second amendment for example. It’s one fucking sentence. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I mean, how hard is that to understand? Yet they’ve infringed THE FUCK out of us…

But that brings us to the question of why? Because in a free society, you need free thinking people. You need good decision makers and people with honor and conscience. You need CITIZENS with civic responsibilities and and sense of duty. Every government fears a free society. Because the will of the people could threaten their power. So they invent institutions like religion and big government and “free public education” to keep people in line. They require state licensing for the most ridiculous things. To do another person’s fingernails, for example, requires a cosmetology license (requiring 1500 hours of training in MD). It’s all about CONTROL, not FREEDOM. And on top it, they tax the fuck outta you. I keep 62 cents of every dollar I earn after all the bullshit comes out.

HOA’s can fine you for not cutting your lawn for a week put a lien on YOUR HOME and ruin your credit or eventually force a foreclosure. A burglar breaking into your house and hurts himself can sue you. A child skins her knee playing in your pool and the parents can sue you. And if you fail to pay court fines for a misdemeanor, you can be incarcerated (even though debtors prisons were “abolished”).

Speaking of “free societies”, if anarchy is one side of the pendulum and our current state of society is on the other, I believe the ideal “sweet spot” is somewhere in the middle. Cuz right now, in OUR society, it sucks.[/quote]

There are stupid laws and annoying red tape (I’m currently fighting the MD MVA for failure to have a vehicle insured, which is pretty incredible seeing as the vehicle was totaled aka it doesn’t exist anymore…) you’ll get no argument from me on that front. However, to act as if American society today sucks is quite frankly laughable. For example, HOAs are bullshit, so when I bought my house I made 100% sure there was not an HOA. That is freedom of choice. Some people prefer HOAs. “Driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time,” you serious? You list a couple of good examples then throw this garbage in there. Fuck it, let’s just remove stop signs, red lights, lanes, etc… who needs traffic laws anyway right? They’re useless.

I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.

[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

[/quote]

Wow. You’ve got way too much time on your hands. OK, it a ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE. Better, dick?

65

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think that laws against crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, stealing, etc… are vital to a functional society.

But all the stupid little laws such as vehicle registration, driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time, “expired” government ID, laws governing sexual behavior, etc… In Virginia, it is ILLEGAL to tickle women… Yes, there is a law against it. All those stupid, little, death-by-a-thousand-cuts laws that suck the juice of freedom right out of you are the ones I can do without. We didn’t vote for them. The state has forced them upon us with their bloated bureaucracy.

Take the second amendment for example. It’s one fucking sentence. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I mean, how hard is that to understand? Yet they’ve infringed THE FUCK out of us…

But that brings us to the question of why? Because in a free society, you need free thinking people. You need good decision makers and people with honor and conscience. You need CITIZENS with civic responsibilities and and sense of duty. Every government fears a free society. Because the will of the people could threaten their power. So they invent institutions like religion and big government and “free public education” to keep people in line. They require state licensing for the most ridiculous things. To do another person’s fingernails, for example, requires a cosmetology license (requiring 1500 hours of training in MD). It’s all about CONTROL, not FREEDOM. And on top it, they tax the fuck outta you. I keep 62 cents of every dollar I earn after all the bullshit comes out.

HOA’s can fine you for not cutting your lawn for a week put a lien on YOUR HOME and ruin your credit or eventually force a foreclosure. A burglar breaking into your house and hurts himself can sue you. A child skins her knee playing in your pool and the parents can sue you. And if you fail to pay court fines for a misdemeanor, you can be incarcerated (even though debtors prisons were “abolished”).

Speaking of “free societies”, if anarchy is one side of the pendulum and our current state of society is on the other, I believe the ideal “sweet spot” is somewhere in the middle. Cuz right now, in OUR society, it sucks.[/quote]

There are stupid laws and annoying red tape (I’m currently fighting the MD MVA for failure to have a vehicle insured, which is pretty incredible seeing as the vehicle was totaled aka it doesn’t exist anymore…) you’ll get no argument from me on that front. However, to act as if American society today sucks is quite frankly laughable. For example, HOAs are bullshit, so when I bought my house I made 100% sure there was not an HOA. That is freedom of choice. Some people prefer HOAs. “Driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time,” you serious? You list a couple of good examples then throw this garbage in there. Fuck it, let’s just remove stop signs, red lights, lanes, etc… who needs traffic laws anyway right? They’re useless.

I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.

[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

[/quote]

Wow. You’ve got way too much time on your hands. OK, it a ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE. Better, dick? [/quote]

I figure since you used CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTING THE AMOUNT ONLY you’d have your FACTS straight. Especially considering your one sentence response was clearly condescending.

Name calling, I thought that was a liberal tactic kind of like being okay with being factually inaccurate as long as the “facts” serve their narrative.

There’s a significant difference between TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS and a $125 fine for first offenders.

66

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.
[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the important question here: Can a North Korean sit on his porch and drink coffee?[/quote]

Can a Somali occupying a failed state, and hence an anarchic environment, do so?[/quote]

It would appear so.

67

Interesting. Regardless, anyone who chooses to reside in Somalia in lieu of the United States is a fool. Given its propensity for violence, why is anarchy superior to hierarchy Nick?

68

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Interesting. Regardless, anyone who chooses to reside in Somalia in lieu of the United States is a fool. Given its propensity for violence, why is anarchy superior to hierarchy Nick?[/quote]

I don’t know that I’d call anyone who chooses to do so a fool. If one chooses to do so, he must have his reasons, and those reasons are none of my business.

Just so I know I’m responding to the question I believe I am: You are asking why anarchy is superior to hierarchy, given anarchy’s propensity for violence, correct?

My answer: Anarchy(I use this term in place of “anarcho-capitalism”) does not have a propensity for violence. It is only statelessness-it doesn’t have a propensity for anything. Human beings, however, certainly do have a propensity for violence. That’s not going to change. Anarchy is superior to hierarchy for the same reason competition is superior to monopoly in any other field.

It’s also worth noting that states have a pretty impressive history of violence. I’d say democide more than holds its own against individual violence in the ‘What’s most violent?’ game.

69

That’s exactly why anarchy lead to more violence and more use of power.

Competition may lead to lower price, lower cost, higher volume and higher quality, but in this case, we are speaking about the market of violence.

We don’t want a “superior market” of this specific product.
Thank you very much.

70

[quote]kamui wrote:

That’s exactly why anarchy lead to more violence and more use of power.

Competition may lead to lower price, lower cost, higher volume and higher quality, but in this case, we are speaking about the market of violence.

We don’t want a “superior market” of this specific product.
Thank you very much. [/quote]

Why not roll the dice and give these fuckers what they want? They have absolutely no political acumen or physical courage and would surely lose the competition of violence. Anything has got to be better than the slow sleepwalk towards mobocracy.

71

[quote]NickViar wrote:

My answer: Anarchy(I use this term in place of “anarcho-capitalism”) does not have a propensity for violence.[/quote]

I’d be willing to bet the your ilk lacks “virtu” my friend. Let’s waltz back to the state of nature and see what happens. I’m ready. Are you?

72

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.
[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the important question here: Can a North Korean sit on his porch and drink coffee?[/quote]

Can a Somali occupying a failed state, and hence an anarchic environment, do so?[/quote]

It would appear so.[/quote]

That video is less than one year old. Somalia has been transitioning out of de facto and de jure statelessness for a good while. A federal government has been in place and relatively stable for two years.

Anyway, mid-Civil-War Somalia was a good example of statelessness but a bad example of anarchy*. There were laws and courts aplenty. Just ask Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow.

*Or, no better an example of anarchy than any other place on the planet: Antarctica, Paris, Boca Raton.

73

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think that laws against crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, stealing, etc… are vital to a functional society.

But all the stupid little laws such as vehicle registration, driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time, “expired” government ID, laws governing sexual behavior, etc… In Virginia, it is ILLEGAL to tickle women… Yes, there is a law against it. All those stupid, little, death-by-a-thousand-cuts laws that suck the juice of freedom right out of you are the ones I can do without. We didn’t vote for them. The state has forced them upon us with their bloated bureaucracy.

Take the second amendment for example. It’s one fucking sentence. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I mean, how hard is that to understand? Yet they’ve infringed THE FUCK out of us…

But that brings us to the question of why? Because in a free society, you need free thinking people. You need good decision makers and people with honor and conscience. You need CITIZENS with civic responsibilities and and sense of duty. Every government fears a free society. Because the will of the people could threaten their power. So they invent institutions like religion and big government and “free public education” to keep people in line. They require state licensing for the most ridiculous things. To do another person’s fingernails, for example, requires a cosmetology license (requiring 1500 hours of training in MD). It’s all about CONTROL, not FREEDOM. And on top it, they tax the fuck outta you. I keep 62 cents of every dollar I earn after all the bullshit comes out.

HOA’s can fine you for not cutting your lawn for a week put a lien on YOUR HOME and ruin your credit or eventually force a foreclosure. A burglar breaking into your house and hurts himself can sue you. A child skins her knee playing in your pool and the parents can sue you. And if you fail to pay court fines for a misdemeanor, you can be incarcerated (even though debtors prisons were “abolished”).

Speaking of “free societies”, if anarchy is one side of the pendulum and our current state of society is on the other, I believe the ideal “sweet spot” is somewhere in the middle. Cuz right now, in OUR society, it sucks.[/quote]

There are stupid laws and annoying red tape (I’m currently fighting the MD MVA for failure to have a vehicle insured, which is pretty incredible seeing as the vehicle was totaled aka it doesn’t exist anymore…) you’ll get no argument from me on that front. However, to act as if American society today sucks is quite frankly laughable. For example, HOAs are bullshit, so when I bought my house I made 100% sure there was not an HOA. That is freedom of choice. Some people prefer HOAs. “Driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time,” you serious? You list a couple of good examples then throw this garbage in there. Fuck it, let’s just remove stop signs, red lights, lanes, etc… who needs traffic laws anyway right? They’re useless.

I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.

[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

[/quote]

Wow. You’ve got way too much time on your hands. OK, it a ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE. Better, dick? [/quote]

I figure since you used CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTING THE AMOUNT ONLY you’d have your FACTS straight. Especially considering your one sentence response was clearly condescending.

Name calling, I thought that was a liberal tactic kind of like being okay with being factually inaccurate as long as the “facts” serve their narrative.

There’s a significant difference between TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS and a $125 fine for first offenders.[/quote]

No, you did the typical PWI tactic and basically ignored PARAGRAPHS of what I wrote and seized on ONE example that I used and attacked it. You didn’t address the POINT. A THOUSAND DOLLARS for driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time is STILL FUCKING EXCESSIVE!

And for the record, several years ago, I DID pay about TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS to the DMV because they fucked up and send the notices to one of my other addresses. Since I didn’t receive the notice, I didn’t pay the fine. I wasn’t even driving the car. But after the penalties and interest ect… I DID pay that amount of money. Which is why I wrote what I wrote.

So for the record, are you in favor of a country that fines people excessively for driving in the wrong lane?

As for name calling, when someone plays the bullshit card that you played and ACTS LIKE A DICK, I’m going to CALL that person a dick. In your first post, you straw manned me accusing me of not wanting red lights, when I made NO SUCH STATEMENT, so YOU threw down the gauntlet first. I wasn’t looking for a fight, I was just expressing MY opinion - not even replying to anyone, just being general. You took a phrase out of one sentence out of several paragraphs and came in guns blazing. Which is a rather “dickish” move. And I think you know I’m no liberal… But the shoe fit.

74

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think that laws against crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, stealing, etc… are vital to a functional society.

But all the stupid little laws such as vehicle registration, driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time, “expired” government ID, laws governing sexual behavior, etc… In Virginia, it is ILLEGAL to tickle women… Yes, there is a law against it. All those stupid, little, death-by-a-thousand-cuts laws that suck the juice of freedom right out of you are the ones I can do without. We didn’t vote for them. The state has forced them upon us with their bloated bureaucracy.

Take the second amendment for example. It’s one fucking sentence. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I mean, how hard is that to understand? Yet they’ve infringed THE FUCK out of us…

But that brings us to the question of why? Because in a free society, you need free thinking people. You need good decision makers and people with honor and conscience. You need CITIZENS with civic responsibilities and and sense of duty. Every government fears a free society. Because the will of the people could threaten their power. So they invent institutions like religion and big government and “free public education” to keep people in line. They require state licensing for the most ridiculous things. To do another person’s fingernails, for example, requires a cosmetology license (requiring 1500 hours of training in MD). It’s all about CONTROL, not FREEDOM. And on top it, they tax the fuck outta you. I keep 62 cents of every dollar I earn after all the bullshit comes out.

HOA’s can fine you for not cutting your lawn for a week put a lien on YOUR HOME and ruin your credit or eventually force a foreclosure. A burglar breaking into your house and hurts himself can sue you. A child skins her knee playing in your pool and the parents can sue you. And if you fail to pay court fines for a misdemeanor, you can be incarcerated (even though debtors prisons were “abolished”).

Speaking of “free societies”, if anarchy is one side of the pendulum and our current state of society is on the other, I believe the ideal “sweet spot” is somewhere in the middle. Cuz right now, in OUR society, it sucks.[/quote]

There are stupid laws and annoying red tape (I’m currently fighting the MD MVA for failure to have a vehicle insured, which is pretty incredible seeing as the vehicle was totaled aka it doesn’t exist anymore…) you’ll get no argument from me on that front. However, to act as if American society today sucks is quite frankly laughable. For example, HOAs are bullshit, so when I bought my house I made 100% sure there was not an HOA. That is freedom of choice. Some people prefer HOAs. “Driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time,” you serious? You list a couple of good examples then throw this garbage in there. Fuck it, let’s just remove stop signs, red lights, lanes, etc… who needs traffic laws anyway right? They’re useless.

I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.

[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

[/quote]

Wow. You’ve got way too much time on your hands. OK, it a ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE. Better, dick? [/quote]

I figure since you used CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTING THE AMOUNT ONLY you’d have your FACTS straight. Especially considering your one sentence response was clearly condescending.

Name calling, I thought that was a liberal tactic kind of like being okay with being factually inaccurate as long as the “facts” serve their narrative.

There’s a significant difference between TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS and a $125 fine for first offenders.[/quote]

No, you did the typical PWI tactic and basically ignored PARAGRAPHS of what I wrote and seized on ONE example that I used and attacked it. You didn’t address the POINT. A THOUSAND DOLLARS for driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time is STILL FUCKING EXCESSIVE!

And for the record, several years ago, I DID pay about TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS to the DMV because they fucked up and send the notices to one of my other addresses. Since I didn’t receive the notice, I didn’t pay the fine. I wasn’t even driving the car. But after the penalties and interest ect… I DID pay that amount of money. Which is why I wrote what I wrote.

So for the record, are you in favor of a country that fines people excessively for driving in the wrong lane?

As for name calling, when someone plays the bullshit card that you played and ACTS LIKE A DICK, I’m going to CALL that person a dick. In your first post, you straw manned me accusing me of not wanting red lights, when I made NO SUCH STATEMENT, so YOU threw down the gauntlet first. I wasn’t looking for a fight, I was just expressing MY opinion - not even replying to anyone, just being general. You took a phrase out of one sentence out of several paragraphs and came in guns blazing. Which is a rather “dickish” move. And I think you know I’m no liberal… But the shoe fit.[/quote]

No Angry, I did not. In fact I agreed with the vast majority of your point:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
There are stupid laws and annoying red tape (I’m currently fighting the MD MVA for failure to have a vehicle insured, which is pretty incredible seeing as the vehicle was totaled aka it doesn’t exist anymore…) you’ll get no argument from me on that front.
[/quote]

You then turned around and did exactly what you just blames me of doing. You latched onto a portion of my post, about your example, and point out in no uncertain terms it is outrageous when it is fact a $125 dollar fine for first offenders. You have to break the law FOUR times to get hit with a ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE.

Thanks for clarifying what happened to you in ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE, which still doesn’t change any of the actual FACTS, but explains your position. How I was supposed to know you were talking about HOV lanes at all (driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time does not conjure images of an HOV lane) let alone a personal situation from your original post is beyond me.

“So for the record, are you in favor of a country that fines people excessively for driving in the wrong lane?”

No I am not, for the record. I am, however, for sensible laws and a means to enforce those laws. $125 for “driving in the wrong lane” is not excessive in my opinion.

As far as your last paragraph goes, coming from you, that is hilarious.

75

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.
[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR fine one receives for driving in an HOV lane here in VA, but whatever.[/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the important question here: Can a North Korean sit on his porch and drink coffee?[/quote]

Can a Somali occupying a failed state, and hence an anarchic environment, do so?[/quote]

It would appear so.[/quote]

That video is less than one year old. Somalia has been transitioning out of de facto and de jure statelessness for a good while. A federal government has been in place and relatively stable for two years.

Anyway, mid-Civil-War Somalia was a good example of statelessness but a bad example of anarchy*. There were laws and courts aplenty. Just ask Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow.

*Or, no better an example of anarchy than any other place on the planet: Antarctica, Paris, Boca Raton.[/quote]

My mistake. I don’t keep abreast of the state of affairs in the Horn of Africa as much as I should. Do courts and laws necessarily indicate hierarchy? Did the aforementioned have overarching authority over the whole of Somalia? I would contend that the international political system is an anarchic one, as no overarching authority exists to regulate states’ behavior toward one another. The existence of international “law” and institutions such as the International Criminal Court do not negate this.

76

[quote]Bismark wrote:

My mistake. I don’t keep abreast of the state of affairs in the Horn of Africa as much as I should. Do courts and laws necessarily indicate hierarchy? Did the aforementioned have overarching authority over the whole of Somalia? I would contend that the international political system is an anarchic one, as no overarching authority exists to regulate states’ behavior toward one another. The existence of international “law” and institutions such as the International Criminal Court do not negate this. [/quote]

Yeah, I’m not really arguing the semantic point that “one can’t call it anarchy” so much as I’m making the observation that what people like Nick refuse to understand is that the dismantling of a given government does not under any circumstance entail the end of oppressive laws, courts, “police,” enforcers, political majorities, death sentences, conquests, and tyrants. In fact, it invariably allows these things to thrive.

What Nick actually yearns for, in other words, is not a change in government–it is a change in human nature.

77

So I applaud your allusion to Somalia, if it was you who made it. I’m just going a little deeper into Somalia’s particular details.

78

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Interesting. Regardless, anyone who chooses to reside in Somalia in lieu of the United States is a fool. Given its propensity for violence, why is anarchy superior to hierarchy Nick?[/quote]

I don’t know that I’d call anyone who chooses to do so a fool. If one chooses to do so, he must have his reasons, and those reasons are none of my business.

Just so I know I’m responding to the question I believe I am: You are asking why anarchy is superior to hierarchy, given anarchy’s propensity for violence, correct?

My answer: Anarchy(I use this term in place of “anarcho-capitalism”) does not have a propensity for violence. It is only statelessness-it doesn’t have a propensity for anything. Human beings, however, certainly do have a propensity for violence. That’s not going to change. Anarchy is superior to hierarchy for the same reason competition is superior to monopoly in any other field.

It’s also worth noting that states have a pretty impressive history of violence. I’d say democide more than holds its own against individual violence in the ‘What’s most violent?’ game.[/quote]

It absolutely has a propensity for violence. There are three models of social control: coercion, self-interest, and legitimacy. Under anarchy, superior force is the final argument, and the best we can hope for is rational egoism, which is only as strong as the overlapping interests among actors. When the gains derived from defection become greater than the gains from cooperation, agents operating under rational egoism will not hesitate to betray one another. Refer to the classic prisoner’s dilemma or the stag hunt analogy. Contingent cooperation is a fragile edifice whose inevitable dissolution often results in the use of force among actors.

Yes. States do have an impressive history of violence, which is exactly the point I’m trying to make. International relations are underpinned by anarchy, as no supranational authority exists above states that effectively regulates their behavior among one another. Thus, international politics can be said to be a self-help world. Anarchy applied to the domestic realm would result in nothing more than the proliferation of many micro-states competing among one another for power and influence. Those agents who possessed superior material capabilities would have little incentive not to bring them to bear to their advantage in economic and political dealings. Anarco-capitalism is predicated on the erroneous belief that close economic relations are an effective bulwark against armed conflict, which is a dubious assumption to say the least. WWII is a textbook example of this.

Anarchy leads to the very violence it strives to transcend. Generally speaking, states which successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force serve as pacifiers for the populations within their territories. Actors believe that it is not only in their self-interest to follow the law of the land, but begin to see them as legitimate mandates. Thus, self-interests become interests. Coercion is no longer seen by sub-sate actors as a viable tool to achieve objectives within society.

79

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Anarchy leads to the very violence it strives to transcend. Generally speaking, states which successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force serve as pacifiers for the populations within their territories. Actors believe that it is not only in their self-interest to follow the law of the land, but begin to see them as legitimate mandates. Thus, self-interests become interests. Coercion is no longer seen by sub-sate actors as a viable tool to achieve objectives within society. [/quote]

It’s exactly this with which I have a problem-the delusional belief that the vast majority are anything but slaves to the powers that be. Stockholm syndrome is the problem.

80

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yeah, I’m not really arguing the semantic point that “one can’t call it anarchy” so much as I’m making the observation that what people like Nick refuse to understand is that the dismantling of a given government does not under any circumstance entail the end of oppressive laws, courts, “police,” enforcers, political majorities, death sentences, conquests, and tyrants. In fact, it invariably allows these things to thrive.

What Nick actually yearns for, in other words, is not a change in government–it is a change in human nature.[/quote]

There is no denying that humans tend to eventually realize that their state is no longer under their control. History is full of revolutions. There’s also no denying that human nature is human nature. Slaves accept enslavement in exchange for their lives. The question is, why should a group with a massive majority accept being enslaved by a tiny minority?