[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think this is a moot point[/quote]
Not sure if it is “moot” since Brother Chris insists on it as an important aspect of Anarchy, but I do believe it is a truism that can only be defeated by the complete absence of common sense.
[/quote]
I contend there is a state of Non Government , it is called Anarchy
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think this is a moot point[/quote]
Not sure if it is “moot” since Brother Chris insists on it as an important aspect of Anarchy, but I do believe it is a truism that can only be defeated by the complete absence of common sense.
[/quote]
I contend there is a state of Non Government , it is called Anarchy[/quote]
I think the only difference is State become a noun rather than a proper noun
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I contend there is a state of Non Government , it is called Anarchy[/quote]
But there is no state of it - it doesn’t and hasn’t existed.
It is a hypothetical, an abstraction - but it doesn’t exist.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Business is reciprocal[/quote]
Only in the sense that businesses must take all the risk so that the consumers can benefit.
There is no reciprocity otherwise.
Consumers control businessmen.
In fact, it seems upon initial inspection that the modern notion of the state is to protect businessmen from the control that consumers have.
What I am arguing is that businessmen should take responsibility for their own business and leave the taxpayers out of it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Business is reciprocal[/quote]
Only in the sense that businesses must take all the risk so that the consumers can benefit.
There is no reciprocity otherwise.
Consumers control businessmen.
In fact, it seems upon initial inspection that the modern notion of the state is to protect businessmen from the control that consumers have.
What I am arguing is that businessmen should take responsibility for their own business and leave the taxpayers out of it.[/quote]
Business take a certain amount of risk to get a certain amount of money. If my house burns down Hostess Twinkies are not going to buy me a new house because I bought their product , so they do not assume all responsability
Consumers have a say in business, but the ultimate decisions are made by the business. If they make a bad decision it costs them business.
I totally agree business should be responsible for them selves , but like you and i Business should abide by laws . And the more complicated the business the more laws we need to protect the consumer. The market is all about profit, nothing else.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Business is reciprocal[/quote]
Only in the sense that businesses must take all the risk so that the consumers can benefit.
There is no reciprocity otherwise.
Consumers control businessmen.
In fact, it seems upon initial inspection that the modern notion of the state is to protect businessmen from the control that consumers have.
What I am arguing is that businessmen should take responsibility for their own business and leave the taxpayers out of it.[/quote]
Business take a certain amount of risk to get a certain amount of money. If my house burns down Hostess Twinkies are not going to buy me a new house because I bought their product , so they do not assume all responsability
Consumers have a say in business, but the ultimate decisions are made by the business. If they make a bad decision it costs them business.
I totally agree business should be responsible for them selves , but like you and i Business should abide by laws . And the more complicated the business the more laws we need to protect the consumer. The market is all about profit, nothing else. [/quote]
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
Profit only happens (in a free market) when customers are satisfied.
Customers rule, always and forever, amen!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Business is reciprocal[/quote]
Only in the sense that businesses must take all the risk so that the consumers can benefit.
There is no reciprocity otherwise.
Consumers control businessmen.
In fact, it seems upon initial inspection that the modern notion of the state is to protect businessmen from the control that consumers have.
What I am arguing is that businessmen should take responsibility for their own business and leave the taxpayers out of it.[/quote]
Business take a certain amount of risk to get a certain amount of money. If my house burns down Hostess Twinkies are not going to buy me a new house because I bought their product , so they do not assume all responsability
Consumers have a say in business, but the ultimate decisions are made by the business. If they make a bad decision it costs them business.
I totally agree business should be responsible for them selves , but like you and i Business should abide by laws . And the more complicated the business the more laws we need to protect the consumer. The market is all about profit, nothing else. [/quote]
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
Profit only happens (in a free market) when customers are satisfied.
Customers rule, always and forever, amen![/quote]
you and I will have to agree to disagree. Profits in any market only ocure when the product sells for more than it costs
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]toddrc wrote:
Maybe we could all learn something from this documentary.
Like what? That I do not like living in the desert?[/quote]
It appears these people are living some form of anarchy, and as pittbull pointed out, there are others. I just thought it might offer some insight on the subject. No?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In fact, it seems upon initial inspection that the modern notion of the state is to protect businessmen from the control that consumers have.[/quote]
This is true to a large extent. Most laws arose out of economic necessity. Most people think that laws arose from moral principles but that’s not the case. For instance, many people think that contract law arose out of the moral principle that “it is wrong to break a promise.” False.
Contracts have nothing to do with breaking premises and, except in certain very defined circumstances, a bare promise to do something is not enforceable. Businesses, in turn, want a legal way to enforce contracts because contracts provide certainty. For instance, if I agree to provide certain services to your business for a year and for a set fee, we both benefit.
I benefit because I now have a source of employment for at least a year and you benefit because you now have a supply of services at a price that cannot increase for the next year. Sure there is a downside - the price of my services could increase but I would be locked into the contract price, but on the other hand a competitor could offer the same services at a decreased cost and you would be locked in. But this is the risk we take in exchange for certainty.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]
…says the man who constantly refers to “the market”.
[/quote]
But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.
For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.
We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.[/quote]
You get on this type of defense when (I believe) you have no where to go . While this may or may not be true , it has no meanning or consequenses. It is a diversion so you do not have to answer questions .
like why is there not 1 example of this far superior form of NonGovernment. I think the form you speak of would kind of be like a default form of Gov. When all else fails .[/quote]
It is usually a default, but now there is always some default State Department from some other country very willing to come in and set up there new government.
However, there is no such thing as Non-Government, however Anarchy is without the State.[/quote]
Let’s say the state of Non Government is Anarchy by definition [/quote]
Can you rephrase this, Anarchy does not mean no government, it means there is no State. Best Western is a governor over hotels, having anarchy would not dissolve Best Western.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]
The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.
Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.[/quote]
Criminals would love this scenerio , I know the market would have law enforcement for sale .
It is not that I have an unability to understand this fantasy , it is you that fails to understand the realality of your proposal. I am not saying that your proposal would not work , I believe it would be a far inferior life for most everyone and I feel the longer it went with out direction the worst it would become
Again I contend your form of government could work well under NO circumstance , If you do dis agree tell me what would be an ideal cicumstance[/quote]
I already told you what my ideal is. I would rather people be free to choose what is in their own best interests and not have it be decided for them by government (or the “will of the people”).
I just don’t get how you can think that a free market on law enforcement could be a bad thing. More choices is always better than one – even if a few might be corrupt it beats the corruption of a monopoly institution like government.
In a free market those that do not meet the needs of the consumers go out of business. The government no matter how faulty it gets will never be “out of business”. Democracy ensures that one dunderhead will be replaced for an other.
Furthermore, with government out of the way all goods and services would become cheaper and more abundant – again, this gives people more freedom to choose and thus they are much better off for it. I have a feeling its your inability to grasp how the free market works to achieve the optimal price that keeps you from being convinced of my arguments.[/quote]
One of the problems is everyone has different ideals . There would be no coheision.[/quote]
This will always be a problem and government does not solve it. The market actually allows people with different and competing ideals to get along with one an other.[quote]
I think rather than paid law enforcement we would have gangs , some being kinder than others but you would have to belong to a gang for protection. I thin society as a whole would be contolled not by the market but by the strongest gangs .[/quote]
We already do have gangs that do this because they understand that government cannot.[quote]
I think for a free market it is imperative to have a good government. That is why the free market does not exsist in places like Somalia and Afganistan .I know our Gov is bloated and needs parred down. I got that [/quote]
If the free market does not exist it is because the government tries to govern it. The black market is a market that attempts to subvert government oppression. The unfortunate part is that black markets are not free precisely because gangs and the like have an incentive to be violent as long as the government keeps narcotics’ prices artificially high thru prohibition[quote]
I believe to say the market would self equal and controll everything is a kin to the tail wagging the dog[/quote]
It’s not really the “market” that corrects itself. The market is just a process for exchange. The market influences and is influenced by people acting in their own best interests. It requires unhampered price signals to work. When the government interferes it masks real prices and therefor the actors in the market cannot know what is really going on.
When the signals are unhampered it does not guarantee that all actors will make the right choices but at least they will know sooner rather than later that they have made the wrong choice and then can “fix” what they have done. That is how the market is “self correcting”. It is continually sending signals to buyers and sellers who can only act on the information that comes from the market.
This is why when prices are artificially high it creates bubbles. Investors jump into the market expecting greater ROI than can be realized by current productive capacities and the whole thing must collapse – unless the government further distorts prices by bailing out the failures.[/quote]
About the only thing I can agree with is that we have gangs but not for the same reason. If your form of no government is so superior , why does it not flourish. I mean not one example .[/quote]
Because people do not always do what is best for them. Why if doing crack-house meth is bad for you that some people do it. Because of concupiscence. Also because there are plenty of people driven to power, some people are driven to have someone rule over them.
There are plenty of places that were not ruled by the State. But of course they went in two directions, a State government either took claim over their land as the law, or someone persuaded the people that it would be better to have a forced government.
A lot of Anabaptist’s fall into this category.
[/quote]
I think Anarchy (COULD) be a superior form of life , if you could hand pick everybody in your group. Also there are probablt religeous orders that Govern their members better than any form of Government could.[/quote]
It would, because it would allow for those that wished to live against the status quo to live against the status quo without being thrown into jail.
I am not sure what the hand picking comment is about. Would you explain further for me?
[/quote]
As with gangs I see it as the group forming organization out of chaos. Probably asmall percentage of the gang sees an orportunity to make money . That is why we have gangs . Nothing to do with the gov except the war on Drugs [/quote]
I’ll see if I can find the study, but the formation and strengthening of gangs is directly linked to the formation of regulations against some kind of product.
Most gangs do not form out of chaos, they form out of repression, usually.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If your form of no government is so superior , why does it not flourish. I mean not one example.[/quote]
Is it not obvious to you why?
Because people with power never want to give it up. The system supports itself by enriching the political class.
The only way to do away with it is to ignore it completely and convince others to do the same.[/quote]
While I agree with the first part of this statement , I think we need to control our Government better . not do way with it.
If you do not think that some one or some people or even big business would control the masses, I believe you are only fooling your self . Big business could only thrive in a world where there is order. All you could do in the state of Chaos is protect your wealth[/quote]
You assume that there would be chaos if there was no state. Why do you think there would be chaos?
Also, what would we need for big business, most of small businesses give better prices and services than bigger operations.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
However, there is no such thing as Non-Government, however Anarchy is without the State.[/quote]
There can’t be “government” without some version of a “state”.[/quote]
Oh, thanks for the revealing statement, can you support that?
I’ll support that you can have government without the state.
All G are A.
Some A are NS.
Some G are NS.
Governments are descriptively authoritative things, however they are not all versions of a ‘state.’ Let’s look at authoritative bodies that govern individuals and institutions actions without forcing the individuals to follow their rules without volunteering:
Best Western
Six Sigma Certification
Athletic training certifications
With those three governing bodies, we can see that governments are not some kind of version of a ‘state.’ Anarchy does not mean lack of cooperation, it means there is no monopoly on force and coercion from the state (e.g. institutionalized aggression).
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think this is a moot point[/quote]
Not sure if it is “moot” since Brother Chris insists on it as an important aspect of Anarchy, but I do believe it is a truism that can only be defeated by the complete absence of common sense.
[/quote]
I contend there is a state of Non Government , it is called Anarchy[/quote]
Again, Anarchy does not mean there is no government, it means there is no state.
[quote]toddrc wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]toddrc wrote:
Maybe we could all learn something from this documentary.
Like what? That I do not like living in the desert?[/quote]
It appears these people are living some form of anarchy, and as pittbull pointed out, there are others. I just thought it might offer some insight on the subject. No?[/quote]
Yes, I as a Catholic have met a few of these people, usually they are…uh…much less violent, most people call them hermits. They do not like to socialize, however that is a form of anarchy, but that usually puts a bad image in people’s minds kind of like the whole Road Warrior and Water World put bad images in people’s minds about Anarchy somehow.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You assume that there would be chaos if there was no state. Why do you think there would be chaos?[/quote]
This is a great point! Why do some people say without government there would be chaos but at the same time they do not recognize the chaos caused by government intervention?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Oh, thanks for the revealing statement, can you support that?[/quote]
Of course - there can be no legitimate government without the ultimat backdrop of a state to enforce rights.
[quote]I’ll support that you can have government without the state.
All G are A.
Some A are NS.
Some G are NS.
Governments are descriptively authoritative things, however they are not all versions of a ‘state.’ Let’s look at authoritative bodies that govern individuals and institutions actions without forcing the individuals to follow their rules without volunteering:
Best Western
Six Sigma Certification
Athletic training certifications[/quote]
The existence of cooperative bodies isn’t proof that a state is superfluous - it is only proof that individuals sometimes cooperate because it is in their interest to do so. That’s it. People don’t always cooperate.
All you provided were three examples of cooperative “government” - but no one disputes that these exist. The existing of these “governments” is no proof at all as to whether people don’t need a state.
Plus, even though we have covered the miserable failure of relying exclusively on contractual rights to enforce contractual rights - circular idiocy that could never work through your vaunted arbitration process - you still have no accounting for non-cooperative relationships that need addressing: the area of torts, when someone harms my property and I have no contractual right to recover my damages from them.
In your precious, precious Utopia, if I get harmed by someone I have no contractual agreement with, I have no remedy without a state.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You assume that there would be chaos if there was no state. Why do you think there would be chaos?[/quote]
This is a great point! Why do some people say without government there would be chaos but at the same time they do not recognize the chaos caused by government intervention?[/quote]
Something would give it order , if nothing more than the lack of
organization