Yo Libertarians...

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[center]Sierra Leone Marketplace [/center]

Help me out because I’m missing something:

Isn’t it one thing if a “black market”, within a somewhat stable society, provides things cheaper; or allows us to avoid taxes; or allows us to barter services, etc…

And quite another if it is essentially our main mode of survival? (e.g. in places like Baghdad and Sierra Leone).

In the former, the black market is a “convenience” that allows us to “get by” or “get over”…

In the latter, you have a market that can be more exploitative than the Government it circumvents.

I think that people also tend to forget that even with regulations, people are exploited…so somehow we get rid of regulation and oversight and then… “poof”… they won’t be exploited, and we will all be holding hands and drinking tax-free milk, honey and Coke in the streets?

I think I’ll stick with the oversight and regulation (within limits…)

(Please let me know what I’m missing here…!)

Mufasa
[/quote]

What you’re missing is examples of said exploitation in these third world black markets.

Otherwise very interesting and possibly good point of argument.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I would say no rule of law, wikapedia says no state. I would have no more interest exploiting those weaker than me ,than I would in some one stonger than me exploiting me

In the absence of a state there would still be a “rule of law”. We call it custom. The enforcement of custom would return to family and community.

Anarchy is simply a free society whose wants and needs are met by the market place as opposed to being met by the state.

It would be impossible to form a society without rules and laws. One of the simplest examples I can think of is the use of language for communication. In order to form a language a community of people have to agree on rules and meaning or else it is useless.

These agreements are not necessarily formalized yet must be understood by all who use it. There is no governing body of officials who enforces these rules; however, it is enforced by the fact that cooperation requires certain protocols to be followed.

An other good example of an anarchic society, albeit a virtual one, is the internet. The establishment of protocols that govern its use are not enforced by law but rather by a market of users and developers.[/quote]

The internet is best case scenario, but it is loaded with Rules or limitations. I would see anarchy as mostly small bands and some large bands of people struggling for top position. Unlike the internet you could lose you life, wife kids or possessions to a stronger person or clan. I think what you are describing is Utopia

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[center]Sierra Leone Marketplace [/center]

Help me out because I’m missing something:

Isn’t it one thing if a “black market”, within a somewhat stable society, provides things cheaper; or allows us to avoid taxes; or allows us to barter services, etc…

And quite another if it is essentially our main mode of survival? (e.g. in places like Baghdad and Sierra Leone).

In the former, the black market is a “convenience” that allows us to “get by” or “get over”…

In the latter, you have a market that can be more exploitative than the Government it circumvents.

I think that people also tend to forget that even with regulations, people are exploited…so somehow we get rid of regulation and oversight and then… “poof”… they won’t be exploited, and we will all be holding hands and drinking tax-free milk, honey and Coke in the streets?

I think I’ll stick with the oversight and regulation (within limits…)

(Please let me know what I’m missing here…!)

Mufasa
[/quote]

I know the World considers Serial Leon�??s Black market illegal, but does Sierra Leon consider it so. And if they do the must not care all that much.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[center]Sierra Leone Marketplace [/center]

Help me out because I’m missing something:

Isn’t it one thing if a “black market”, within a somewhat stable society, provides things cheaper; or allows us to avoid taxes; or allows us to barter services, etc…

And quite another if it is essentially our main mode of survival? (e.g. in places like Baghdad and Sierra Leone).

In the former, the black market is a “convenience” that allows us to “get by” or “get over”…

In the latter, you have a market that can be more exploitative than the Government it circumvents.

I think that people also tend to forget that even with regulations, people are exploited…so somehow we get rid of regulation and oversight and then… “poof”… they won’t be exploited, and we will all be holding hands and drinking tax-free milk, honey and Coke in the streets?

I think I’ll stick with the oversight and regulation (within limits…)

(Please let me know what I’m missing here…!)

Mufasa
[/quote]

What you are missing is that you are biased.

What you think is exploitation is actually a market price you do not agree with.

This is actually an excellent opportunity to make a profit if prices are really to high. If you cannot compete with these prices they are high for a reason.

Biased???

In what way?

Also; these markets are great examples of what, exactly?

Thanks!

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Biased???

In what way?

Also; these markets are great examples of what, exactly?

Thanks!

Mufasa[/quote]

Well, the term “exploited” has an implicit moral judgment.

Second, they are great examples of emergent self organizing systems…

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The internet is best case scenario, but it is loaded with Rules or limitations. I would see anarchy as mostly small bands and some large bands of people struggling for top position. Unlike the internet you could lose you life, wife kids or possessions to a stronger person or clan. I think what you are describing is Utopia
[/quote]

Anarchy just describes how a society is organized without the guidance of a state. It does not preclude the various other market structures that would spring up in its place whether they be religious, educational, mafioso, etc. It is no utopia – it just maximizes individual liberty.

In an anarchic society individuals would not recognize the authority of any person or group over any other person or group and all exchanges would be completely voluntary, recognizing the nonaggression principle and rights of property.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Biased???

In what way?

Also; these markets are great examples of what, exactly?

Thanks!

Mufasa[/quote]

You are biased against free markets.

These markets are a great example of how supply and demand circumvent regulation.

Thanks for the replies!

This has always been my problem with a lot of social theories and ideas. They tend to do three things:

  1. Completely discount the way humans really act.

  2. In keeping with number one, seem to ignore the History of man and the way humans have behaved in the past.

  3. Take “moral” judgements out of the equation, as if you can deal with other humans without some sense of “right” and “wrong”.

Lift…your own definition points to those glaring realities.

Theory

“In an anarchic society individuals would not recognize the authority of any person or group over any other person or group”…

Reality

In what real world?

There will, and have always been, someone, or group of someones, who desire and seize power. They then make it known to the less powerful, usually by Force, that they have that power.

The argument can be made that those “forced” to recognize power don’t accept that authority. However, there usually is an authority that they do recognize. Even when that power is overthrown, the vacuum does not last long, until another authority (or power) takes over.

Theory

“…All exchanges would be completely voluntary…”

Reality

Inevitably, someone controls resources, territories, markets, etc, and exchanges become sort of “pseudo-voluntary”. You exchange, or you suffer.

Extortion of a product and or resource from a person or
group of people also often occurs.

Theory

“…Recognizing the nonaggression principle and rights of property…”

Reality

History has shown us that if given the Power and desire for more power and control, non-aggression and recognition of property rights mean nothing.

I am by NO means a student of free market theory, Libitarianism or any one system that men have, or could live under.

However, despite all the great and grand ideas that have been tried over the Centuries, “human nature” has remained pretty consistent.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Thanks for the replies!

This has always been my problem with a lot of social theories and ideas. They tend to do three things:

  1. Completely discount the way humans really act.

  2. In keeping with number one, seem to ignore the History of man and the way humans have behaved in the past.

  3. Take “moral” judgements out of the equation, as if you can deal with other humans without some sense of “right” and “wrong”.

Lift…your own definition points to those glaring realities.

Mufasa[/quote]

Quite right. I should have prefaced my second paragraph with, “In an ‘ideal’ anarchic society…”

I was not trying to imply that anarchy is a panacea for the ills individual human action. It simply maximizes individual liberty. Even under the authority of a state the problems you describe will exist.

There is no such thing as a “power vacuum”. Power is just the notion that there exists some supreme sovereignty over individual action. Power always changes hands because it, undoubtedly, cannot meet the needs, desires, and wishes of every individual and will always work to suppress minority groups who will then push to overthrow it. Name one Dynasty that has never been pushed out of “power”.

The biggest problem I can see with your argument is your collectivist definition of human nature. Human nature cannot be defined except by how individuals act – as such it can only be called “human nature” as a convenience. For example, evil is committed by very few individuals and not by “human nature” as a whole.

You should not allow history to shape your view of the possibilities of future human events. History does not repeat itself. Humans are capable of learning and applying proper theory toward specified ends. In this regard one must accept the dynamic state of “human nature” and its propensity to change.

To your third point about morality, the only moral absolute is the principle of nonaggression. It is derived from the notion of ethical reciprocity; that we should treat others as they wish to be treated and expect the same in return. This indeed requires more education about the principles of liberty in general.

There are many significant violent events in human history that offer an example of the violation of the principle of nonaggression committed by the State. That is my thesis for the abolition of the State and a progression to a more free society.