And In Other News Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]florelius wrote:
Private armies and Courts doesnt sound like freedom to me, it sounds more like a dystopian living hell in my eyes, where the Rich have private armies, police-forces at their disposal and the poor have none who protects them except themself( like a angry starving abused mob for instance ). What makes more sense in an anarchist context IMO, is perhaps something like communal Courts and militias, not Commercial ones I see are suggested here at PWI by some of the resident anarcho-capitalists. Then again I am a socialist and therefor cant see the Logic behind anarcho-capitalism. [/quote]

Any society depends on the goodwill of its people. The poor may have to organize a militia themselves, while the rich may be able to pay others to defend them–of course, the rich will likely be paying who? The poor. That will tend to make the poor what? Less poor. Division of labor and whatnot.

There will always be winners and losers. The only thing socialism does is create an extremely small group of winners and an extremely large group of losers. Forced socialism REQUIRES rulers. Capitalism does not. In a free society, you’re welcome to give away as much of your wealth as you want.

182

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Any society depends on the goodwill of its people. The poor may have to organize a militia themselves, while the rich may be able to pay others to defend them–of course, the rich will likely be paying who? The poor. That will tend to make the poor what? Less poor. Division of labor and whatnot.

There will always be winners and losers. The only thing socialism does is create an extremely small group of winners and an extremely large group of losers. Forced socialism REQUIRES rulers. Capitalism does not. In a free society, you’re welcome to be as socialist as you want, but nobody would be there to force others to participate. [/quote]
You should include the fact that everything in that post is supposition based on your imagination which is influenced by your convictions.

Why assume that the rich will pay the poor to fight for them? Is there historical evidence to make you draw that conclusion? If anything, there is the opposite.

Your conclusions about socialism and capitalism are based on what evidence? You also go from mentioning socialism to then qualifying it with “forced.” Which is it?

183

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You should include the fact that everything in that post is supposition based on your imagination which is influenced by your convictions.

Why assume that the rich will pay the poor to fight for them? Is there historical evidence to make you draw that conclusion? If anything, there is the opposite.

Your conclusions about socialism and capitalism are based on what evidence? You also go from mentioning socialism to then qualifying it with “forced.” Which is it? [/quote]

When somebody uses the word “poor” on an internet message board, I tend to believe they are just referring to the non-rich. Do I believe that the rich will pay a single mother of 10 kids who has no desire to work, or a wino to defend them? No.

What type of people make up every police and military force I can think of? The “poor”/middle class. I may be wrong, but I doubt that Microsoft is paying its best software design engineers to act as security guards.

Non-forced socialism is fine with me. It can certainly exist in a libertarian society. If all the Norwegian guy was talking about is his right to cooperatively own and manage property with others who have the same desire, that’s great. If what he was talking about is a desire to force those who don’t want to socialize their properties, then that’s no good.

184

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Private armies and Courts doesnt sound like freedom to me, it sounds more like a dystopian living hell in my eyes, where the Rich have private armies, police-forces at their disposal and the poor have none who protects them except themself( like a angry starving abused mob for instance ). What makes more sense in an anarchist context IMO, is perhaps something like communal Courts and militias, not Commercial ones I see are suggested here at PWI by some of the resident anarcho-capitalists. Then again I am a socialist and therefor cant see the Logic behind anarcho-capitalism. [/quote]

Any society depends on the goodwill of its people. The poor may have to organize a militia themselves, while the rich may be able to pay others to defend them–of course, the rich will likely be paying who? The poor. That will tend to make the poor what? Less poor. Division of labor and whatnot.

There will always be winners and losers. The only thing socialism does is create an extremely small group of winners and an extremely large group of losers. Forced socialism REQUIRES rulers. Capitalism does not. In a free society, you’re welcome to give away as much of your wealth as you want.
[/quote]

So in Your eyes its better to have a society wich may turn into a civil-war between Commercial defence Corporations and the masses, instead of one state With monopoly of violence that was based on the ideas of the rule of Law( equality before the Law, indipendet courts, the right too due process in a Court of Equals and basic human rights )?

Because I cant see how a stateless society can be one under the rule of Law and thats is IMO a problem With both leftwing and rightwing anarchism. It must be a reason why Your founding fathers who where libertarian-ish actually founded a state. Do you think they where wrong in that regard?

185

[quote]NickViar wrote:
What type of people make up every police and military force I can think of? The “poor”/middle class. I may be wrong, but I doubt that Microsoft is paying its best software design engineers to act as security guards.
[/quote]
The problem with what you just posted is that, even if true, it assumes that if the wealthy turned to private armies that is the model they would follow when historically that isn’t the case.

Microsoft hiring “poor” security guards is irrelevant since they are being hired in the context of how are nation is at the moment. Bill Gates does not need a private army. Of course some could argue that the wealthy already have a private army. Someone made money off the war in Iraq.

186

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Of course some could argue that the wealthy already have a private army. Someone made money off the war in Iraq. [/quote]

Yep.

187

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You should include the fact that everything in that post is supposition based on your imagination which is influenced by your convictions.

Why assume that the rich will pay the poor to fight for them? Is there historical evidence to make you draw that conclusion? If anything, there is the opposite.

Your conclusions about socialism and capitalism are based on what evidence? You also go from mentioning socialism to then qualifying it with “forced.” Which is it? [/quote]

When somebody uses the word “poor” on an internet message board, I tend to believe they are just referring to the non-rich. Do I believe that the rich will pay a single mother of 10 kids who has no desire to work, or a wino to defend them? No.

What type of people make up every police and military force I can think of? The “poor”/middle class. I may be wrong, but I doubt that Microsoft is paying its best software design engineers to act as security guards.

Non-forced socialism is fine with me. It can certainly exist in a libertarian society. If all the Norwegian guy was talking about is his right to cooperatively own and manage property with others who have the same desire, that’s great. If what he was talking about is a desire to force those who don’t want to socialize their properties, then that’s no good.[/quote]

Poor in my context means, whoever doesnt have the means to hire private defence Corporations and to pay for private Courts.

On the other: I had my anarcho-socialist phase and my dogmatic-marxist phase, but I came to the realization that while the end goals of both where great( who can be against the idea of a stateless and classless society ) and basicly the same, I found them too be very unrealistic and if they have chance of working its probably a 1000 years from now. I also got more appreciativ of the idea of the “rettstat”( A state under rule of Law in English ), partly from Reading this forum. To make a long story short I am a statist, democratic socialist who thinks a reformist route towards socialism is best. And yes I am all for the state to buy Stocks, Corporations and to establish state owned Corporations, but I feel expropriation( taking property by force ) is only suiteable in a few situations and I am more comfortable With the state getting more property by more traditional means( aka buying it With consent from its owner ). I am however a strong proponent in the idea of the state to help People set up Cooperations( trough Public banks, subsidies, tax breaks for Cooperations ), because one thing I ahve left from my anarchist and marxist phases is a desire to see more working People having more Control of their workPlace. But Yes in Your eyes I Guess I am a authoritarian statist big-government fucker and I understand that sentiment, because I thought so myself when I was more radical than I am now.

188

[quote]florelius wrote:
So in Your eyes its better to have a society wich may turn into a civil-war between Commercial defence Corporations and the masses, instead of one state With monopoly of violence that was based on the ideas of the rule of Law( equality before the Law, indipendet courts, the right too due process in a Court of Equals and basic human rights )?

Because I cant see how a stateless society can be one under the rule of Law and thats is IMO a problem With both leftwing and rightwing anarchism. It must be a reason why Your founding fathers who where libertarian-ish actually founded a state. Do you think they where wrong in that regard?[/quote]

A civil war may occur in any society. One happened in this one. Civil war is better than peacefully accepting enslavement. No war would ever occur if everyone would just accept enslavement.

Why does a society need to be under one rule of law? If defense was privately funded, the costs of constant bickering between agencies would likely result in some standardizing of law. Humans being human, this would likely eventually result in tyranny(agency attempting to control what people do with their own property). That would be a good reason to rebel.

Patrick Henry was the most libertarian of the founding fathers of America, but even he enslaved others(reluctantly, it seems- THE SLAVE-TRADE.; An Original Letter from Patrick Henry. - The New York Times ). Therefore, they were not libertarians. I don’t think they were wrong to establish a state(they were the ultra-wealthy of the time, so it was in their best interest), but I don’t think it should have been peacefully accepted.

189

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am however a strong proponent in the idea of the state to help People set up Cooperations( trough Public banks, subsidies, tax breaks for Cooperations ), because one thing I ahve left from my anarchist and marxist phases is a desire to see more working People having more Control of their workplace.[/quote]
-Perhaps you misunderstood anarcho-capitalism. That is nothing like it. That is rulers determining winners and losers-not people having more control of their workplace.
*edit: my mistake, I thought you said you had gone through an anarcho-CAPITALIST phase, not an anarcho-socialist one. Anarcho-capitalism(libertarianism) and anarcho-socialism are very different. Anarcho-socialism requires those capable of creating objects capable of crossing the Atlantic ocean in a matter of hours to continue to innovate, while being compensated the same as the man cleaning the object’s bathroom. Anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism requires only the rejection of rulers/initiation of force.

-I am really not bothered by your views. If you attempted to force them on me, I would be justified in killing you(in a free society), but I have no problem with your views.

-How sad it is that allowing people to make their own decisions is seen as radical.

190

[quote]NickViar wrote:
-Perhaps you misunderstood anarcho-capitalism. That is nothing like it. That is rulers determining winners and losers-not people having more control of their workplace.
[/quote]

I know this is not a anarcho-capitalist policy since it involves a state, but if a larger % of the workplaces in a country where Cooperatives in contrast to now, then yes more People would then have more Control at their workplaces because they would be working at a workplace where they and their collagues would own it in contrast to just being employees. Know you may not share my enthusiasm for Cooperatives, but you cant argue that it doesnt give working People more of a say and controll over their Labour.

Okay. I dont know how much you own, but if it just a house and a small bussiness I would not try to take Your property( trough the state offcourse ) in the hypotetical situation I was president in Your country With a mayority in both houses who supported me.

Its nothing wrong in being radical in itself, it just means you want to chance the society by its roots. A communist or a anarcho-socialist is by definition more radcial than you since not only is their goal the abolishment of the state, but also the abolishment of capitalism. Since I dont want the abolishment of the state and sees a room for a private sector, I am offcourse less radical since I want less of a change. Compared to a liberal or a socialdemocrat I am still very radical. Compared to you, not so much.

191

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
So in Your eyes its better to have a society wich may turn into a civil-war between Commercial defence Corporations and the masses, instead of one state With monopoly of violence that was based on the ideas of the rule of Law( equality before the Law, indipendet courts, the right too due process in a Court of Equals and basic human rights )?

Because I cant see how a stateless society can be one under the rule of Law and thats is IMO a problem With both leftwing and rightwing anarchism. It must be a reason why Your founding fathers who where libertarian-ish actually founded a state. Do you think they where wrong in that regard?[/quote]

A civil war may occur in any society. One happened in this one. Civil war is better than peacefully accepting enslavement. No war would ever occur if everyone would just accept enslavement.

Why does a society need to be under one rule of law? If defense was privately funded, the costs of constant bickering between agencies would likely result in some standardizing of law. Humans being human, this would likely eventually result in tyranny(agency attempting to control what people do with their own property). That would be a good reason to rebel.

Patrick Henry was the most libertarian of the founding fathers of America, but even he enslaved others(reluctantly, it seems- THE SLAVE-TRADE.; An Original Letter from Patrick Henry. - The New York Times ). Therefore, they were not libertarians. I don’t think they were wrong to establish a state(they were the ultra-wealthy of the time, so it was in their best interest), but I don’t think it should have been peacefully accepted.[/quote]

I disagree With you regarding the idea of any state equaling enslavement of its People, I dont consider People living under a state wich exist only by their consent, With restrictions on what it can do to its Citizens( bill of rights for instance ) and who are governed by elected representatives who make the Laws. I do agree however that the USA under its founding wasnt a true Democracy/republic because of slavery and that it came closer to being one With the abolishment of slavery, voting rights for all men and women and the end of the segregation.

Regarding why the rule of Law under one state is importat, is because everyone is considered Equals under the same Law. With a market consisting of competing Courts( and ergo laws ) then that becomes difficult to achieve. Also as I said before the People who cant hire a private police, who cannot participate in the legal market due to poverty and who cannot defend themself With violence due to ilness etc are defensless against crimes of any kind. I think therefor that the concept of a state under the rule of Law are the best to date even though as any systems it has its shortcomings.

192

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Patrick Henry was the most libertarian of the founding fathers of America, but even he enslaved others(reluctantly, it seems- THE SLAVE-TRADE.; An Original Letter from Patrick Henry. - The New York Times ). Therefore, they were not libertarians. I don’t think they were wrong to establish a state(they were the ultra-wealthy of the time, so it was in their best interest), but I don’t think it should have been peacefully accepted.[/quote]
A. When it comes to Henry: historical context.

B. It wasn’t peacefully accepted: there was a war.

193

[quote]florelius wrote:
I disagree With you regarding the idea of any state equaling enslavement of its People, I dont consider People living under a state wich exist only by their consent,[/quote]
-that wouldn’t really be a state

-A bill of rights is great…until the state stops caring about it.

-That’s great, if the representatives only make laws for those who elect them and their properties.

-Voting is just a way to convince the people to peacefully accept their enslavement. A vote only matters if the rest of the voting body is divided exactly 50/50. It’s certainly a good way to ensure those who violate the citizens don’t end up with their heads divided from their bodies.

194

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A. When it comes to Henry: historical context.

B. It wasn’t peacefully accepted: there was a war. [/quote]

A. What about historical context? He owned slaves; therefore, he can’t be considered a libertarian.

B. There wasn’t a war between the federalists and anti-federalists…or are you talking about the War of Northern Aggression?

195

[quote]florelius wrote:
because one thing I ahve left from my anarchist and marxist phases is a desire to see more working People having more Control of their workPlace. [/quote]

Double edged sword portion of this aside, and trying to speak in terms of real-life and not theory, this isn’t an exclusive feature of a “socialistic” government, nor does a “socialistic” government mean this will happen.

You can have this under a “free market” situation rather simply but you would need the government to recognize certain types of business formation that you outlined you don’t like.

196

[quote]NickViar wrote:
-that wouldn’t really be a state
[/quote]

Yup aslong as said entity had monopoly on violence it would classify as a state. A stateless society is one wich no entity has that monopoly, a free-market of violence if you will. Also popular consent for being governed are the basis of the concept of the social contract and in extension the rule of Law and Democracy.

Always a risk in a Democracy, but again in a Democracy people can vote out people who fuck With basic humans rights, thankfully. You cant say that for any other system. Now if people will do that is another questions, considering people vote for people who voted yes for the patriot act for instance to name a example.

Depends on the system and I would rather say its great aslong as the elected keep true to the grounds on what they where elected for. For instance a libertarian who votes for socialist policy is not keeping true to his/her ideals and what platform that person/party run under. Same is true With a socialist privatizing the Public sector. In both cases they are liers, but I Guess that will always be a default With Democracy.

Perhaps and I agree Democracy can give that feeling of false Empowerment, but it can also empower the People for real. Democracy gives People the possibility to change the society if they will peacefully without waging war. And in my wiew the only legitimate state is a democratic one. I prefer a parliamentary system over the one you have and I have no problem With one party gaining over 50%( wich is rear in a parliamentary system since it most often is better suited for more than two partys ), because: 1, its the result of an election and 2, it can be more good if said party have good policy. In reality hovewer in a parliamentary system more than one party have to form a New administration because as said allready there is often more than two partys. This in turn leads to a more stable system and one where more wiews are influencing the policy making and the execution of said policy.

197

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
because one thing I ahve left from my anarchist and marxist phases is a desire to see more working People having more Control of their workPlace. [/quote]

Double edged sword portion of this aside, and trying to speak in terms of real-life and not theory, this isn’t an exclusive feature of a “socialistic” government, nor does a “socialistic” government mean this will happen.

You can have this under a “free market” situation rather simply but you would need the government to recognize certain types of business formation that you outlined you don’t like. [/quote]

True that it:

  1. Doesnt automatically comes to existence in a socialist state.

  2. That it can exist and actually in som instances exists now.

Regardless of that many socialists( especially anarchists ) from the 1800`s thought this too be very positive and ideal and have always been apart of the socialist movement, though not all socialists where super keen on it( Stalin, some social-democrats etc ). And my point was really that I just want too see more workingplaces being more like this and I see it as one of the Things I have from my anarchist phase.

198

The really funny thing about all of this is that Nicky actually fancies himself enslaved at the moment lol

199

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
The really funny thing about all of this is that Nicky actually fancies himself enslaved at the moment lol [/quote]

Explain how I(or you) am not. I have a government job, so I’m like a house slave(who does not wish to be a slave at all), but a slave nonetheless.

200

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
The really funny thing about all of this is that Nicky actually fancies himself enslaved at the moment lol [/quote]

Explain how I(or you) am not. I have a government job, so I’m like a house slave(who does not wish to be a slave at all), but a slave nonetheless.
[/quote]
Are you single?