deliberatus on July 18, 2010, 07:51:28 am
So, in a society with NO government (besides this amusing hobby of King Reggie) there is no formal police force. So here we  have a nice dollop of organized crime, possibly definable as piracy, CERTAINLY as claim jumping. So how does this society, presented apparently as the ideal society, deal with these antisocial persons?

Assume nothing about the person writing this, i wear many hats as it suites the moment. I am married to NONE of them.  ;D

SandySandfort on July 18, 2010, 09:37:17 am
I don't know where to begin. This screed is brimming with "questions" predicated upon unwarranted assumptions. Let's begin with the Subject:

"Law and order where there is neither?"

What justifies the assumption that there is no law or order in an anarchy? There, of course, are no government laws, by definition. But the classic example of where "laws" arise where there is not government is pickup basket ball. A bunch of people meet at the court and decide to play a game. What government law determines the rules? Yet somehow rules are agreed upon and the game is played.

The second assumption is the most preposterous. That being there is no order if there is no government. Purely out of self-interest, people develop and adhere to orderly standards. Those that don't play by the rules are "out of the club." This is what business ethics is all about. Extremely sophisticated codes of behavior, such as the Lex mercatoria (Law Merchant) developed to avoid pissing contests between merchants and between merchants and their customers. With government, rules are made that do not enhance the market and lead to such disorder as police riots.

So, in a society with NO government (besides this amusing hobby of King Reggie) there is no formal police force. So here we  have a nice dollop of organized crime, possibly definable as piracy...

Interesting assumption. Please justify why you think there would be organized crime? As we all (should) know, organized crime flourishes where governments arbitrarily interfere with the market (prohibition of businesses such as alcohol, drugs, prostitution, scalping, gambling, etc.) Legalize all drugs tomorrow and the dope peddlers go out of business. At the same time, drug related crimes drop precipitously. Ditto for the other prohibitions of consensual activities.

Piracy? Please. There is plenty of piracy now, due in large part to the government laws that deny effective self-defense to merchant ships. The war ships sent to "protect" merchant ships are almost always too late to do anything meaningful.

... CERTAINLY as claim jumping. So how does this society, presented apparently as the ideal society, deal with these antisocial persons?

No need to be snide and inaccurate.   ;)

Nowhere has anyone suggested that anarchy is ideal. It's just better than government. As to your questions. Claim jumping is far less likely then you seem to image. In the Old West, essentially all claims were regulated and registered by private mining groups. Anti-social types would be handled pretty much based on how anti-social they were. We saw what Butcher Harris got; in the current arc, we are dealing with claim jumpers and pirates and thieves, oh my! Let's see how that turns out.

Assume nothing about the person writing this, i wear many hats as it suites the moment. I am married to NONE of them.  ;D

What?!   :o

You hand us a load of assumptions and tell us to assume nothing about you? That is just too rich. Thanks, but no thanks. My assumption is that you are wearing your shit-disturbing troll hat. Hey, good luck with that. You are dealing with some of the smartest forum members on the net. You are in over your head, my friend. Nice try though.  ::)

terry_freeman on July 18, 2010, 06:48:25 pm
Thanks to the previous poster for answering the latest troll.

I'll just toss out one key idea for the infinite supply of doubters: the lack of a ruler ( which is what anarchy literally means ) does not mean a lack of law. This is not a hypothetical distinction; there are many, many examples of people creating workable laws as needed without having to rely upon governments.

Sandy recently posted this url http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

See in particular this refutation of the myth that "Government is the only way to solve problem X."

"This is the fallacy of government solipotence - the erroneous belief that only the State can solve society's problems. In fact, every valid service that governments now perform can be done more morally, and usually better, by voluntary means. Virtually every current government service has been done, at some time in history, by voluntary means. Private roads, private courts, police, and legal systems, cheap private health insurance, mail delivery, quality control certification, wildlife preservation, and so on have all been done privately."

Police, law, and courts have all been developed privately, and have worked quite well, in some cases for hundreds of years.

J Thomas on July 19, 2010, 01:50:55 am
So, in a society with NO government (besides this amusing hobby of King Reggie) there is no formal police force. So here we  have a nice dollop of organized crime, possibly definable as piracy, CERTAINLY as claim jumping. So how does this society, presented apparently as the ideal society, deal with these antisocial persons?

The story hasn't yet described how this will work out.

But one way it could work in general, is that it is indeed a society. Get caught doing things that people generally disapprove of, and they will disapprove of you. They don't do business with you, or only at extra-high prices. It takes some pretty rich criminal pickings to do better than way than by being honest. And what if the place you're in gets hit by a meteorite and nobody comes to help you?

Why that approach fails in the USA is that we have multiple societies, and some of them are criminal societies. You get mafias when ethnic groups are discriminated against, and they don't see better opportunities. Then when each ethnic group gets assimilated and does get legitimate chances, the mafias dwindle. We had an irish mafia, an italian mafia, a chinese mafia, a korean mafia, a vietnamese mafia, etc. All of them still exist to some extent except perhaps the irish one which gets no publicity. Blacks have not been assimilated well and so it sometimes happens that black jurors will acquit blacks accused of crimes against whites, on general principle. Government is a contributing factor to the problems, but the central issue is multiple societies trying to coexist when some of them suffer economic discrimination.

I expect that in Sandy's story it will turn out that government agents believe they will not have to live with public disapproval. They can do their dirty work anonymously and then go home to earth etc where no one will know or care about their crimes. This has been the case for almost every crime that has been shown so far. An invading fleet. Two assassins. Etc. The one exception I noticed was a refugee who stole a meal in desperation, who then gladly accepted job offers.

By assumption, this is a society where there are more than enough opportunities to go around. Arrive as a refugee and get many chances. There is no need for a criminal underclass. There will be some people who do shady deals, but not enough to be particularly important. It's like, if you could make $100,000/year honestly or $125,000 working just as hard but doing things a lot of people would disapprove of, which would you do?

Could a society be built that depended on the collective will of the people to enforce the laws? Certainly! It's often been that way. Would it provide perfect justice? No. There would be powerful people who could safely do things you would consider wrong, things that less-powerful people could not do. That's always true, it's a big part of what it means to be powerful. Any society will give some people rights that other people don't get. But such a society could be reasonably orderly, reasonably safe, and could (but might not) provide a degree of justice better than what we have today.

If these claim-jumpers turn out to be government agents, Sandy's fictional society will presumably deal with them the way the leaders of the invasion force were dealt with, if they get caught. If they escape to Terra then presumably the society will collectively shrug and put the matter aside.

dough560 on July 19, 2010, 03:22:40 am
See my posts on Natural and Situational Law.

quadibloc on July 19, 2010, 01:15:44 pm
Why that approach fails in the USA is that we have multiple societies, and some of them are criminal societies. You get mafias when ethnic groups are discriminated against, and they don't see better opportunities.
Generalizing this a bit more, this is, to me, a big reason why it appears we need government.

In general, even in a "Wild West" situation, there is indeed a pretty broad consensus that things like stealing and murder and rape are wrong. So self-defense and vigilante justice may well be good enough - and, in fact, might even work better at ensuring public safety than governments are doing for us right now.

But a society with deep ethnic or religious divisions, on the other hand - like Yugoslavia or Iraq - seems to need a government to hold it together. I agree, though, that there is a better answer: partition them into smaller pieces. A small piece, with only people belonging to one faction, would be a society of people who want to work together, not kill each other. Even if there were still government, there would only be a need for a tolerable amount of it.

WarpZone on July 20, 2010, 05:58:05 am
Guys, it's not that big of a deal.

The original poster is asking you to provide more information about a process he admits he doesn't understand because it's not explored in the comic.

These people aren't trolls.  These are ordinary people who are not familiar with Anarchy and are curious to learn more.

If you keep going "OMG it's a troll!" every time someone new asks a question, how do you expect us to learn anything?

Azure Priest on July 20, 2010, 07:27:47 am
Sorry, Sandy. Making drugs legal will NOT "make dope peddlers go away." There are numerous instances where drugs ARE legal and YET "organized crime" comes into play.

Tobacco. While it IS legal to smoke in places like Canada and Alaska, police are shot, and killed every day by cigarette smugglers who undersell legitimate tobacco merchants.

Oxycontin. Yes, it is LEGAL to get Oxycontin with a valid prescription, but because of the dangerous side effects of the drug, (euphoria, chemical dependence, possible nerve deafness, etc.) it has to be dispensed with utmost care.

Many "back alley" merchants don't CARE about the side effects and CRUSH the pills either to concentrate the "high" of the narcotic effect OR to distribute the drug to people WITHOUT prescriptions for profit. These folks tend to shoot at cops, "clients," each other, and generally anyone whom they (in their paranoid drug dealer way) think MIGHT be a threat to their "profits."

And I happen to know this is true first hand because I work in a pharmacy and recently someone with a valid prescription tried to con our store and the police into getting a replacement "fill" because his script was "misplaced." (Turns out, after review of the security footage, the one who wanted a refill had "pocketed the pills" and hidden his prescription bag on the store shelves to make it look like he never got it.)

And for those who say "making drugs legal makes them 'safe.'" I should point out that there is a LEGAL version of Marijuana in California known as "spice." After its introduction, visits to the emergency room skyrocketed due to side effects, overdose, etc. from the legal "correct" use of the drug.

It should be pointed out that according to the history books I've read, Bert and Ernie's situation is the reason for the Town Sheriff being created as an entity seeing as the US Army couldn't effectively patrol the entirety of the "Wild West." (Hence the name.)

SandySandfort on July 20, 2010, 11:51:05 am
If that were the case, you trolls would be treated with more respect. However, your questions show little or no respect for the people whom you are asking. They are aggressive, often arrogant and based on faulty, unsupported assumption and/or faulty or shallow reasoning. If you really want to ask a question, ask the damned question, but don't start out with a screed as to why anarchy could not possibly work. Read the literature. You guys need to work on your people skills. Your manners are atrocious.

Guys, it's not that big of a deal.

The original poster is asking you to provide more information about a process he admits he doesn't understand because it's not explored in the comic.

These people aren't trolls.  These are ordinary people who are not familiar with Anarchy and are curious to learn more.

If you keep going "OMG it's a troll!" every time someone new asks a question, how do you expect us to learn anything?

SandySandfort on July 20, 2010, 12:35:32 pm
Sorry, Sandy. Making drugs legal will NOT "make dope peddlers go away." There are numerous instances where drugs ARE legal and YET "organized crime" comes into play.

Examples, please. The following situations do not support your thesis.

Tobacco. While it IS legal to smoke in places like Canada and Alaska, police are shot, and killed every day by cigarette smugglers who undersell legitimate tobacco merchants.

Please define, "legitimate tobacco merchants." Define "smuggler." From what you have stated, it would appear that the police who were shot were initiating force against the free market tobacco merchants and were shot in self-defense.

Oxycontin. Yes, it is LEGAL to get Oxycontin with a valid prescription, but because of the dangerous side effects of the drug, (euphoria, chemical dependence, possible nerve deafness, etc.) it has to be dispensed with utmost care.


Gee, I thought euphoria was a benefit, not a "dangerous side effect."  ;)
I live in Panama and I have lived in Costa Rica. Most drugs that require a prescription in the US are available over the counter in these countries. A friend of mine who was a medical practitioner in the US visited me in CR. We went into a pharmacy to get something and her jaw dropped when she saw what you buy without a prescription. "That will stop your heart!" she said as she point to one OTC medication, "and that one can induce seizures!" My response was, "And yet the streets are not filled with the bodies of the dead."

In general, Latin culture believes in personal responsibility. People damned well know they had better educate themselves before they go self-dosing. I was on a prescription medication in the US, but now buy it OTC in Panama. It can cause seizures if taken in excess, so I have titrated my dosage accordingly. Prescriptions are a form of initiation of force, because people are legally forbidden, with threat of fines, arrest, prison and death. There are no prescriptions in an anarchy.

Many "back alley" merchants don't CARE about the side effects and CRUSH the pills either to concentrate the "high" of the narcotic effect OR to distribute the drug to people WITHOUT prescriptions for profit. These folks tend to shoot at cops, "clients," each other, and generally anyone whom they (in their paranoid drug dealer way) think MIGHT be a threat to their "profits."

Like pharmacists don't sell their drugs for profit? Whom you buy from in an anarchy is your choice not some government's. Personally, when I was given illegal drugs in the US, I verified the source. If I didn't and got a bad dose, well, caveat emptor.

And I happen to know this is true first hand because I work in a pharmacy and recently someone with a valid prescription tried to con our store and the police into getting a replacement "fill" because his script was "misplaced." (Turns out, after review of the security footage, the one who wanted a refill had "pocketed the pills" and hidden his prescription bag on the store shelves to make it look like he never got it.)

When people will initiate force against sellers of a commodity, those that want it will not accept the orders of the thugs and will find a way. Good for your would-be customer. I wish more people were willing to resist tyranny.

And for those who say "making drugs legal makes them 'safe.'"

I don't say that; I don't think they are safe now. Fen-phen anyone?  ;D

It should be pointed out that according to the history books I've read, Bert and Ernie's situation is the reason for the Town Sheriff being created as an entity seeing as the US Army couldn't effectively patrol the entirety of the "Wild West." (Hence the name.)

In an anarchy, everyone is the sheriff and the army. By the way, the West wasn't all that wild. Violent crime rates were lower than in the East. I prefer the non-judgmental term, "Old West."

Now as everybody may recall, yesterday I said I would send trolls back to justify the facts and reasoning in their scenarios. Yet I have taken a good deal of time responding to Azure Priest. The reason? He is not a troll. It is clear he is speaking from personal experience and believes what he has written. It is clear he and I do not agree on the issue of drug prohibition. So be it; reasonable minds may differ. I respect Azure Priest because what he brings to the table is consideration, facts and reasoning. Trolls take note. This is how civilized discourse works,

terry_freeman on July 20, 2010, 12:58:30 pm
Anybody who thinks the West was wild should google "not so wild west" and read the research; it was more peaceful in the absence of official government monopoly police than contemporary Eastern cities were.

Some escapees from New Jersey are shocked, shocked that people are permitted or even expected to pump their own gas in other states. It violates all common sense! Likewise, Pennsylvanians are shocked, shocked that it is possible to buy beer, wine, and liquor in grocery stores in other states. Visitors to Nevada are sometimes shocked, shocked to see civilians openly carrying handguns in holsters.

The reaction of statists to the ideas of anarchists must be filed under the same category: fear of the unknown. They fear that the absence of monopoly provision of law will lead to the lack of order. ( See the title of this thread ) This is the logical fallacy known as assuming one's conclusion.

Sandy has already mentioned that many Latin American pharmacies dispense meds over the counter which are deemed "too dangerous" for American to purchase without first going through an Official Gatekeeper and presenting ID and so forth. None of this "prescription" and "regulation" and "banning" folderol is needed to improve public safety; it's just a way to extend the power of the state and to provide work for bullies.

In my youth, tincture of opium was available over the counter; old-timers will recognize the brand name Paregoric. It was widely used for treatment of diarrhea and teething babies. We did not become a nation of opiumheads.

Nowadays, it is impossible to purchase sudafed without presenting ID and having one's purchases tracked. This has not reduced production of crystal meth to any significant degree, but it does reduce the freedom and privacy of every person who wishes reliable relief from nasal congestion. If crystal meth were legal, it would be produced by pharmaceutical companies using reasonable measures to protect the environmental. If we believe the propaganda of the drug warriors, freelance amateur meth labs are toxic waste dumps -  a direct consequence of the War on Some Drugs.


NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on July 20, 2010, 03:56:26 pm
In general, Latin culture believes in personal responsibility. People damned well know they had better educate themselves before they go self-dosing. I was on a prescription medication in the US, but now buy it OTC in Panama. It can cause seizures if taken in excess, so I have titrated my dosage accordingly. Prescriptions are a form of initiation of force, because people are legally forbidden, with threat of fines, arrest, prison and death. There are no prescriptions in an anarchy.

I disagree, though I think Sandy misstated his point.  In an anarchy there is no requirement for a prescription to purchase drugs.  However, prescriptions (pieces of paper with the name of the drug and recommended dosage, as well as probably the name and contact information for the person who wrote it) will almost certainly exist, as long as physicians and pharmacists are separate individuals.  It's simply far too convenient to have one's medical adviser write down the name of a drug, the dosage, and the quantity (or duration) rather than write or remember it one's self (the former because spelling may be important).  Contact information is useful in case there's a question about what was written, so the pharmacist can sanity check it.

SandySandfort on July 20, 2010, 04:21:13 pm
I think Sandy misstated his point.  In an anarchy there is no requirement for a prescription to purchase drugs.  However, prescriptions (pieces of paper with the name of the drug and recommended dosage, as well as probably the name and contact information for the person who wrote it) will almost certainly exist, as long as physicians and pharmacists are separate individuals.

You are, of course, correct. In Panama, when I visit a doctor, he does write out a prescription for medicines or tests he wants performed. When I go to the pharmacy or testing lab, I give them the piece of paper and they follow its instructions. It is a convenience. However, labs will draw your blood, examine stool samples, take buccal swabs or whatever you ask of them with or without a prescription. I have a friend who owns and operates a DNA testing lab. She will test for whatever you can afford to pay for. Paternity tests are very popular...

deliberatus on July 20, 2010, 06:48:29 pm
WELL, this HAS been a fruitful line of discussion. And no, I am not a troll.

I did indeed want to know how society without traditional methods of law enforcement would handle organized predatory behavior. As there is no 'law', it cannot in the common sense be termed 'crime'. But is most certainly is predatory behavior.

Mayhaps people will form mercenary groups to pursue such gangs, do something dramatic and permanent to them, and claim salvage rights as their reward? We shall see.
 ::)


SandySandfort on July 20, 2010, 07:13:44 pm
WELL, this HAS been a fruitful line of discussion. And no, I am not a troll.

Uh, thanks for clearing that up.

As there is no 'law', it cannot in the common sense be termed 'crime'. But is most certainly is predatory behavior.

You really aren't paying attention, are you? You are again making assumptions, to wit, "there is no law [in an anarchy]." I have given the Law Merchant as an obvious example of a law without a government and, of course, there are many dictionary definitions that do not depend upon a state. One example, "13. a rule or principle of proper conduct sanctioned by conscience, concepts of natural justice, or the will of a deity: a moral law."

     http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law?r=66 

Mayhaps people will form mercenary groups to pursue such gangs, do something dramatic and permanent to them, and claim salvage rights as their reward? We shall see.

Yes, that's one possibility. However, there are many other possible solutions. In fact, there is an enormous free market of ideas to address any problem in an anarchy.

Yup, you're a troll. No skin off my nose. You're the one who comes off looking obtuse. Usted es un troll sin vergŁenza.   :)

 

anything