Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: AnonymousOne on March 18, 2010, 02:02:47 am

Title: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: AnonymousOne on March 18, 2010, 02:02:47 am
I have an explanation and some questions.

I got into libertarian thought/literature in college and have done a good bit of reading, especially on the economic side of things.  Authors include:  Bastiat, Hayek, Rand, Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Chris Coyne, Hazlitt, Mises, Locke, Bovard, Stossel, etc.

So I'm not completely ignorant on the subject. 

Before I was an Econ major I was a philosophy major so I understand the arguments for an AnCap society.  I even think that if it were possible that is the kind of society I'd want to live in and would think ideal, if it existed.

But here is my problem:  While I agree with the driving philosophy of the movement ... I don't think it's practical.

Assume for a second that somehow, Cuba or some other nation turns into the idealized AnCap "state" (yes, I know, awful term but I can't think of a better one where people of a certain belief are in some way geographically defined)  This state would have, in time:  Extremely private and secure (in the monetary stability form) banks, good industry, good R&D on all sorts of fronts, productive businesses, etc and so on. 

But there is an elephant in the room, the OTHER societies that are still statist and let's face it ... have VERY big guns.

Given a conceptualized AnCap "state" that advances faster, farther, and better than it's brethren in the international community, how does such a group of people survive in a world where 'Foreign Relations' is jokingly, but seriously referred to as "One country F****** another?"

How does this group this "state" of AnCaps survvive and defend itself when other ACTUAL state have the military power to literally turn the AnCaps into a crater with a flick of the switch? 

I agree with the economics and philosophy, but I find the practical application of such philosophy ... problematic at best and catastrophic at worst.  I'm just trying to understand how things would move on a world-wide scale and allow for the survivability for those that choose to live in a stateless society.   

Thoughts?
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on March 18, 2010, 08:15:23 am
How does this group this "state" of AnCaps survvive and defend itself when other ACTUAL state have the military power to literally turn the AnCaps into a crater with a flick of the switch? 

And turning the AnCaps into a crater, would benefit the perpetrator how?

You'll find your answer in Hong Kong. Sure, the Commies could turn HK into a crater, yet they don't. In fact, after an initial demonstration of their potential for control, they have pretty much left HK alone. Why? Because they need HK and its largely free market system.

Presumably, your hypothetical AnCap society would be producing the medical advances the leaders in the other country want. Ditto for energy, food, you name it. Of course, they could come in and try to make the AnCaps produce under threat of force what they produce in a free market. Good luck.

Even the most stupid dictator does not kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Even if one dictator were so stupid (I'm thinking someone like Mugabe) . He would be stopped, but guess by whom? Yup, other dictators who want to live forever. Parasites need healthy hosts. In the case of technological advances, they need essentially free hosts.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: one eye chuck on March 18, 2010, 09:41:37 am
Sandy, I think I could see a scenario where it may be in a powerful state's interests to make a slag heap out of a free society. I'm assuming that there would be no visa/passport controls in place to enter such a "state." Immigrants could simply "show up" and try to establish a new life without fear of the local government denying them that chance. In order to prevent a brain/labor drain, a more totalitarian gov't may indeed gin up a casus belli. While I'll grant that R&D does better in a free society, it does not mean that no progress can be made under a repressive one. All it takes is a "Glorious Leader" like Kim Jong Il to starve his people and divert resources to his own Manhattan Project (see also Germany's V-2  and the Messerschmidt Me 262).

I believe, like the OP, that it may not be possible to have a perfect Lib/AnCap "state." Absolutes tend to work only in mathematics and Imaginationland.  There are too many practical questions that defy answers. How would a fire department be funded? Would it be like the old days when you had competing fire companies who would literally fight over who got to put out the fire while the house burned down? Voluntary contributions would be nice, but what if you needed $10 per house to buy a fire truck and most only gave $5? If there is no force behind the request for cash, what would you do? Not provide fire protection for those who didn't give? That creates a danger for the larger community. How would something like zoning work?  No one wants a tannery, a rendering plant or an ammo dump next door, but again, how would it be worked out without some form of government? Who would run/pay for water and sewer systems or would it all be well and septic?

 Maybe the threat of "shunning" ( I saw the idea in another thread) would work for most situations, but isn't that just as much a threat of force? Say our recalcitrant tanner or ammo dealer doesn't grow his own food. Does "not cooperating" extend to not trading? What if he has a family that will go hungry and does not have the resources to relocate, would that constitute a threat against their well being, justifying a forceful response?

Maybe I lack imagination, but I keep finding myself forced to come to the conclusion that even if it is something as simple as a town meeting, we, as a species, need to have some form of government. People working together can achieve much more than a lone person. Such cooperation needs some kind of leadership, even if it's just to shout "1..2..3..heave."

The other thing I keep running up against is that it seems to me most people have a desperate need for strong authority figures in their lives.This link - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOm8Ab1Orbr8WN0TmDrYv9u7N-TQD9EGKHDO2 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOm8Ab1Orbr8WN0TmDrYv9u7N-TQD9EGKHDO2) - while not illustrating my point directly, does point to most people's inability to stand up to some one they perceive has authority. This world is a scary place and stories like this make me even more frightened for the future of our species.

I really love the comics on Big Head and the comments are great. I love ideas that make me think! Keep up the good work!

 
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: AnonymousOne on March 18, 2010, 11:14:33 am
I understand your point Sandy, but I think it's flawed. 

1.) HK was part of a militarily formidable British Empire.

2.) China knew they were going to get HK back anyway.

Take for example this scenario:  Let's use Cuba again and the same rough generalizations.  AnCap goods from Cuba begin flooding into the Southern US.  This in the short run begins to hurt US manufacturing.  Unions begin screaming, politicians give stupid speeches and next thing you know you have US warships off your coast to enforce a blockade.

Or you have members of this society which go over to the US with the expressed intent of spreading the word.  They refuse to pay taxes, don't recognize gov't, but are otherwise peaceful people.  People start listening, governments get pissed because some people interpret Anarchy the way a LOT of people do and a things get a litte crazy for a while.

I think the biggest one though is drugs.  An AnCap state would be a haven for traffickers and while I disagree with the drug war, thugs involved in it are going to take advantage of a society like that because it could protect them from foreign intervention, at least to a degree.  What does an AnCap society due when DEA agents show up and start plucking people off your shores?
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 18, 2010, 11:32:34 am
Claiming that shunning is the same as the use of force is a morally bankrupt analogy.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: MacFall on March 18, 2010, 12:36:04 pm
Chuck: the questions "defy answers" because nobody has yet been permitted to attempt to answer them with anything other than "the state". The market is the sum of all voluntary human interaction, including all the creative and innovative processes possessed by mankind. Nobody would suggest that there wouldn't be problems in a free society. But only by allowing the market, which is the greatest problem-solving force in the world, to work on those problems are we likely to see a solution. Just because you and I and a few other theorists lack the imagination (and experience) to solve every conceivable problem in our minds doesn't mean that the problems are unsolvable. Given sufficient liberty, each person is an endless supply of potential solutions. If people are too afraid to try liberty, we can be certain that those problems you predict will never be solved - only having their symptoms treated by ever-more obsolete political methods that cause a hundred more problems for every one they attempt to solve.

AnonymousOne: You seem to have missed the point about Hong Kong. The Chinese DID get it back, and they have done absolutely nothing to abridge the economic freedom that exists there. Because, as Sandy pointed out, they NEED them.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on March 18, 2010, 12:57:00 pm
I believe, like the OP, that it may not be possible to have a perfect Lib/AnCap "state." Absolutes tend to work only in mathematics and Imaginationland.  There are too many practical questions that defy answers. How would a fire department be funded?

First, I have to spend more time writing EFT and less time debating stuff that has been settled long ago. So I am going to propose a different approach. Talking about "who will run the roads?" arguments is just a time waster for those of us who have worked through it. So here's the deal. Pick a "problem" such as "who will fund the fire department?" and come up with your own solution. This particular "problem" was solved many, many year ago in the US. To agorist and libertarian types, any of several solutions instantly come to mind. So consider this an exercise for the student: You live in a community of 100 houses a hundred miles from the next community. Assume there is no government and that you are not allowed to create one. What sort of solution would you create such that if a house caught on fire, there would be a system to fight the fire? Your answer has to be realistic and provide the best fire protection possible.

I am not trying to be a dick about this, but most people who say they cannot conceive of a society without government, simply have not tried. I am always gratified when I make this sort of challenge and see the light bulb go on when somebody gets it.

Now be prepared to defend your solution. Other forum readers will try to punch holes in it, so it has to be bulletproof. If you cannot come up with any viable solution, I will have no choice but to ask everyone else for solutions. That could be embarrassing.   ::)
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Scalping_Elmo on March 18, 2010, 01:12:13 pm
MacFall has it right. It is hard to predict what the solution to the Cuba Alone problem would be.

Especially since the Cuba Alone problem is a straw man to begin with. I could rattle on about the first Boer war, or "The Myth of National Defense", etc. but that would just place me in position to defend something that has no value. Instead I would say that true AnCap requires a type of critical mass before a whole region can become liberated from the depredations of the state.

Essentially before Cuba could become free, or any nation for that matter, the government needs to start shrinking. This could happen through fiscal irresponsibility by the criminals in charge, or any other number of reasons. To cut this short, I will say that Cuba or any other nation is not an island unto itself. No nation would be allowed to become that free if massive imperial powers still exist, otherwise as their government weakens some random imperial power would stage a revolution and replace the leader with a dictator that is friendly to the imperial power.

Here is a more realistic situation to mull over:
Lets say the US went down due to a massive inflationary depression on the scale of Zimbabwe. Imagine all the turmoil this would cause worldwide, as every nation that holds the USD as its premiere reserver currency goes bankrupt due to a lack of funds to pay for their baby-killing soldiers.

From the ashes I could imagine many free cities and allodial fiefdoms springing up.


Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 18, 2010, 08:15:44 pm
True AnCap does not require the exclusion of all other solutions to function. True AnCap is simply voluntary interaction, and is the default solution to most problems, if we can avoid the State horning in. I was just having a read about the South Korean educational system, where the state plays far less of a role than in America. High school attendance is not required at all, yet 98% of S. Korean adults have graduated from high school. Contrast this with America, where high school attendance is required by law, and 30% never graduate. California students make fun of the mandatory and useless State exit examination; one of the questions is "if n = 12, what is -n?"

It is possible that one of my grandsons, a 2nd-generation home schooler, could pass that high school exit exam. He is all of 7 years old. California spends over $10k per student per year, and their students have difficulty with making change.
 
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Zilabus on March 18, 2010, 11:19:35 pm
I think one important thing to realize is that it isn't an absolute that an ultimate free market situation will produce the best goods in all situations. Many times it will, yes, but not always, and especially not when competing with an entire world of non-ultimate free market states. When the Uited Sates starts seeing FreeCuba producing better medical supplies, and cutting into the profit of valuble backers in next election season, they will take action. High tariffs on goods from FreeCuba are likely to be expected, along with the government seriously giving our pharmicutical companies a hand. The same thing can be repeated with many different countries and industries. I doubt other countries will turn FreeCuba into a huge pile of ash in the ocean, but I'd say they're definately going to try to suffocate it, and try to force themselves above the level of FreeCuba.

FreeCuba would be a haven, and I think could easily be compared to the (Almost, but not quite) city states of the carribean in the time of Privateering. And these where wonderfully independent, self surving cities at the time. But, this ended quickly when Governments came to power in that area. FreeCuba would be in an opposite, and very difficult situation. They start in a situation where the entire world is under government power of one type or another. The small governments would likely embrace and love FreeCuba. The large ones, those that currently act as power brokers for the entire earth, would not.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: AnonymousOne on March 19, 2010, 12:16:47 am
Wow this had gone far afield in some ways. 

Sandy, No I am not trying to rehash the privatization debate.  I'm VERY much in favor of privatizing everything I can get my hands on.  Those were not my points because I think that Hayekian orders emerge in such situations. 

And while I understand that the HK answer bears some fruit.  There HAVE been limits placed on HK by China, no nearly as strict as the rest of the country, but control is still control.  Also the scenario is of a "free" bit of geography being transferred  from one nation state to another.

I'm just curious as to the predation of other nation states  against an AnCap Society.   (Perhaps I should have clarified that better)

And the Boer War is a Red Herring I think because the very nature of combat has changed ... astronomically.  Yes you can fight a guerrilla war, up until someone just decides to carpet bomb everything to slag to eliminate the competition. 

I can conceive of a society without government.  I can conceive of decentralized governance through voluntary means.  What I'm having problems conceiving of is the survival of such groups from the predations of powerful nation states.

However ... Elmo's idea of a critical mass will bear some thinking on.  Thanks for tweaking my brain.

I really didn't mean for this to be a quasi-troll question.  I'm actually trying to learn and think about this.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on March 19, 2010, 11:12:38 am
Sandy, No I am not trying to rehash the privatization debate.  I'm VERY much in favor of privatizing everything I can get my hands on.  Those were not my points because I think that Hayekian orders emerge in such situations. 
...I'm just curious as to the predation of other nation states  against an AnCap Society.   (Perhaps I should have clarified that better)
...
However ... Elmo's idea of a critical mass will bear some thinking on.  Thanks for tweaking my brain.

Okay, fair enough. Let me throw this out: Maybe those of you who are questioning a stateless society are asking the wrong questions. They all seemed to be couched in terms of "state," "society," "Island," etc. That is group think. At some point, critical mass may indeed play a part in bringing about a free society, but that is at the end, not the beginning of liberation. The beginning is self-liberation. In any given day, most everything you do is done without government oversight or interference. The trick is to expand that a little bit every day.

All governments, govern with some consent of the people. Which is to say, they cannot govern without widespread consent. If you want a free world, don't play the game. Ignore the oppressors to whatever degree you of comfort you can. Just say, NO.

Some people will say no, by just not volunteering to help the government oppress themselves and others (e.g., failing to fill out the census). Some will go a step further and "game" the system legally (e.g., look for loopholes in the system and exploit them). Every player, who does so, burdens and slows the system. Enough of that, and the system collapses of its own weight. finally, a hardcore minority will choose to subvert the system more proactively.

The point is, every time you choose freedom, you become freer, irrespective of what happens in society. Of course, your free acts help overwhelm the system and provide an example an incentive for others. In that way you are increasing freedom in general. Peace and freedom are viral memes, if given the right soil in which to grow. So start composting. Just say, no.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on March 19, 2010, 10:57:19 pm
"The Consent of the Governed" rolls into "The Sanction of the Victim" very smoothly, going from Jefferson to Rand.  I don't play those games any more.  No consent, no sanction, and especially no mercy (they don't offer it except as a joke, I don't grant it period).
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: AnonymousOne on March 20, 2010, 01:16:16 am
Yeah Sandy I appreciate the thought experiment, I'm still working on it.  And I do try to ignore the state when feasible. 

I remember on the fr33 agents forum that there was a thread titled "random acts of anarchy"  where people posted up things they did to subvert the the state systems.  I think one guy dumped all of his street's garbage for a month by putting it in his truck and taking it down to the dump.  Apparently the city workers got really confused.  :D

Anyway thanks for giving me some things to think about. 
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 20, 2010, 02:43:15 am
Imagine you live in a world entirely composed of sovereign individuals. No government, no army.

A relatively large group of people (large enough to support itself without outside trade,) decides that they should rule the world. Let's call them "The Autarky." This group of people starts training their members to be soldiers, and arming them with the best stuff they can make. The Autarky also taxes its citizens to buy aircraft carriers, fighters and bombers, attack helicopters, tanks and artillery, etc.

What happens if these people decide to invade? You can fight them as an individual. You get one shot before they tear your house to bits, or call in artillery to pound you to bits. How does one person stop a mortar crew? Red Dawn is not what really happens when untrained guerrillas go up against a trained army. Red Puddles is more like it.

In the meantime, what happens to your kids? Your neighbors? If fighting means your entire family will be killed, do you fight? Genghis Khan avoided a lot of fights like this, and people have not changed one bit since his time. Some will surrender to protect their families.

Even assuming you can raise an army, how do you fund it? Private individuals pay all the tax dollars the government spends, admittedly. However, what if you need more to defend against the Autarky's forces than you can get voluntarily? There are a LOT of free-riders out there. If you need 70% of the GDP to fund the war effort, and people only donate 35%, you are going to lose.

What if you need more people to do the job? An AC or Libertarian state won't be able to draft people, will it?

Finally, what if the Autarky is willing to use nukes or CBW to attack the unhealthy ideas from outside their borders? The only way to prevent somebody from dropping fusion bombs and anthrax on your home is to have these weapons yourself, and a credible means of retaliating after they are used against you. These are not, by any means, defensive weapons. Would individuals be allowed to possess them, regardless, in this hypothetical world?

Government is almost always bad, but the protection of citizens from initiation of force by outsiders is a legitimate function of government. Without a group to train, organize and obtain funding and even troops for an armed force, that force is going to lose. There is a legitimate role for police, as well. A gang could do everything I discussed above to its fellow citizens as easily as a neighboring country. Another role would be quarantine. Somebody with the plague is putting your life at risk just as clearly as a person with a gun, and what is the point of telling them you will not trade with them when they have already walked in to your store and infected your customers?

An army does not mean you cannot operate domestically with all of the rules we see in EfT. It does mean that others are going to have a much harder time stopping you from doing so.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on March 20, 2010, 03:08:00 am
Well, a bunch of folks without support from their own or any other government seem to be doing a fair job defending themselves and their families against the best-armed military on the planet, over in a little shithole called Iraq.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on March 20, 2010, 10:20:06 am
Imagine you live in a world entirely composed of sovereign individuals. No government, no army.

A relatively large group of people (large enough to support itself without outside trade,) decides that they should rule the world. Let's call them "The Autarky." This group of people starts training their members to be soldiers, and arming them with the best stuff they can make. The Autarky also taxes its citizens to buy aircraft carriers, fighters and bombers, attack helicopters, tanks and artillery, etc.

Uh, like the Soviet Union? But this paragraph, like the ones the follow, is fraught with unsupported or even acknowledged assumptions. This is called "special pleading."

See, just because the USSR was more than big enough to support itself, it couldn't. The stick just does not work as well as the carrot. And if you have no real money, taxing your people to buy the "best stuff," won't get you the best stuff.

Show me some real world examples instead of special pleading and inherently unrealistic scenarios. While the theoretical benefits of a stateless society are sneered at as pie-in-the-sky, they nowhere match the the dystopian fantasies of those who always want to bend a knee to the "all powerful" state. This amazes me, because nowhere do you see a state that works. They appear to work only long enough to melt down and collapse of their own weight.

What happens if these people decide to invade?

Afghanistan.

You can fight them as an individual. You get one shot before they tear your house to bits, or call in artillery to pound you to bits. How does one person stop a mortar crew? Red Dawn is not what really happens when untrained guerrillas go up against a trained army. Red Puddles is more like it.

This is the hidden assumption that I hate the most. Critiques of a stateless society always state the alternatives as the organized state vs. disorganized individuals. WTF? As we know, the states are inherently dynamically unstable. Keeping a state going requires constant fiddling.

A society of individuals, on the other hand, is not disorganized. Market forces provide, ubiquitous, near-instantaneous self-correction. Defense against aggression is a marketable service. (I leave the details of how to do it as an exercise for the student. Hint: white there are multiple ways this can be done, a lot of them are just a more sophisticated solution, similar to free market fire departments.)

What if you need more people to do the job? An AC or Libertarian state won't be able to draft people, will it?

If your use of language is muddled and self-contradictory, you cannot expect to be successful at abstract thinking. Please, for Chaos' sake, stop using intellectually vapid expressions such as "libertarian state." If it uses aggression, it is not libertarian; if it does not use aggression, it is not a state.

Finally, what if the Autarky is willing to use nukes or CBW to attack the unhealthy ideas from outside their borders? The only way to prevent somebody from dropping fusion bombs and anthrax on your home is to have these weapons yourself, and a credible means of retaliating after they are used against you. These are not, by any means, defensive weapons. Would individuals be allowed to possess them, regardless, in this hypothetical world?

What if your mother is actually an alien? Nothing personal, but this is the sort of silly special pleading fantasy I described above. This has never happened in the history of the real world. No state has ever been successful at keeping "unhealthy ideas from outside their borders" from coming in, no matter what amount of force was used. Show me it ever happening in real life. While you are at it, explain the benefit to the parasitic aggressor in the wholesale killing of productive "hosts" and the destruction of the things those people create.

Government is almost always bad, but the protection of citizens from initiation of force by outsiders is a legitimate function of government.

Which they do not provide. Essentially every US war since the Revolutionary War, was an unnecessary pretext war that resulted in the deaths of Americans in the hundreds of thousands and the slaying of millions of non-combatants caught in the middle. That is pretty shitty "protection" in my book. Please show me a US war that wasn't a pretext to justify killing and destruction to benefit special interests, and which actually made Americans safer.

 
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Zilabus on March 20, 2010, 04:56:51 pm

Quote
A society of individuals, on the other hand, is not disorganized. Market forces provide, ubiquitous, near-instantaneous self-correction. Defense against aggression is a marketable service. (I leave the details of how to do it as an exercise for the student. Hint: white there are multiple ways this can be done, a lot of them are just a more sophisticated solution, similar to free market fire departments.)

However, defense aggainst agression is only a easily or well marketable service when the public is 'aware and afraid' of being brought under attack. In general, this will mean self defense forces would likely only be funded by a minimum of the population, those that are under constant fear of foreign invasion. Intelligence services (If they would even have a place in libertarian society, seeing as they very rarely give reapable benifit to the funders unless the funders are a government,) would be non-existant or underfunded. There would be no reliable information to the effect that a bordering state is preparing to attack, and no reason for a larger portion of the population to give to self defense forces.

You're correct, smaller powers often engage in long, brutal gurilla efforts against larger powers. However, the knowledge of this isn't quite stopping larger powers from attack smaller, guerilla nations. So unless you enjoy living your life running through tunnels and planting roadside bombs, all the while living in caves and watching friends and family members die, for years at a time, you likely aren't going to consider this an ideal wartime solution.



Quote
Which they do not provide. Essentially every US war since the Revolutionary War, was an unnecessary pretext war that resulted in the deaths of Americans in the hundreds of thousands and the slaying of millions of non-combatants caught in the middle. That is pretty shitty "protection" in my book. Please show me a US war that wasn't a pretext to justify killing and destruction to benefit special interests, and which actually made Americans safer.

Whether the war is an "American" war or not is irrelevant. If your claim is that there has never been a war fought for self defensive purposes, and that therefore the idea that a military is useful in defending oneself is unwarrented, then which nations it involves has no impact on the argument. There have been many wars fought where one side is interested purely in defending itself from an agressor. WWII has a few examples, and so does the age of Imperialism.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on March 20, 2010, 05:22:58 pm

Quote
A society of individuals, on the other hand, is not disorganized. Market forces provide, ubiquitous, near-instantaneous self-correction. Defense against aggression is a marketable service. (I leave the details of how to do it as an exercise for the student. Hint: white there are multiple ways this can be done, a lot of them are just a more sophisticated solution, similar to free market fire departments.)

However, defense aggainst agression is only a easily or well marketable service when the public is 'aware and afraid' of being brought under attack. In general, this will mean self defense forces would likely only be funded by a minimum of the population, those that are under constant fear of foreign invasion. Intelligence services (If they would even have a place in libertarian society, seeing as they very rarely give reapable benifit to the funders unless the funders are a government,) would be non-existant or underfunded. There would be no reliable information to the effect that a bordering state is preparing to attack, and no reason for a larger portion of the population to give to self defense forces.

Insurance is used to protect against unlikely losses.

Quote
Which they do not provide. Essentially every US war since the Revolutionary War, was an unnecessary pretext war that resulted in the deaths of Americans in the hundreds of thousands and the slaying of millions of non-combatants caught in the middle. That is pretty shitty "protection" in my book. Please show me a US war that wasn't a pretext to justify killing and destruction to benefit special interests, and which actually made Americans safer.

Whether the war is an "American" war or not is irrelevant.

I never said it was. You said that governments protect their citizen against foreign aggression. And then I said, no they do not, they increase the danger for citizens. I only used the US wars as examples of this. And at that,  I was being kind in not reminding you that you have the burden of proof. The evidence you have offered that governments always, generally or even occasionally provide the protection you tout. If you think governments help or protect them more than they harm and endanger them, please give some of your own examples.

If your claim is that there has never been a war fought for self defensive purposes...

No, that is not my claim. I put the American Revolutionary War in that category.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Zilabus on March 20, 2010, 05:58:43 pm
Quote
Insurance is used to protect against unlikely losses.

Getting water damage in my home from flooding is far more foreseeable then being invaded by neighbors to the north. Besides, many people go unisnsured, and many others are only insured when required to do so by the government. If a portion of the population doesn't think it's worth it to be insured in case they break their arm or wreck their car, then a much larger one will think it isn't worth it to protect from some force that has never directly effected their lives.

Quote
You said that governments protect their citizen against foreign aggression. And then I said, no they do not, they increase the danger for citizens.

You're confusing me with another member.

Quote
If you think governments help or protect them more than they harm and endanger them, please give some of your own examples.

I did, mentioning WWII and the Age of Imperialism. Obviously, you want a more specific example, so I will give one. The first one that comes to my head right now is Ethiopia, which was one of the only countries to remain independent during Europes Scramble for Africa. They have a strong, decisive leader, and a relatively well organized government to thank for this. They succsesfully managed to avoid coming under foriegn rule by avoiding and refusing opressive trade agreements, and then when they where presented with force (From Italy, if I remember correctly) the government managed to raise a modernised army capable of stopping Italy and allowing them to remain undominated by foriegners.

(Edited to fix format errors)
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 20, 2010, 08:51:24 pm
Why do these scenarios always assume that the wannabe rulers have the best guns, and the defenders have popguns?

What if wealthy defenders have the serious artillery, the no-compromise fighter jets, the pocket nukes, and so forth? What if they have a fifth column amongst the wannabe rulers?

I once listened to a Russian professor discuss the collapse of the former USSR. He was asked why it happened so quickly. He replied "We were all radishes; we were just waiting for the right moment."

An AnCap society will happen when enough people wake up and say "We are all AnCap now. We do not give our consent to the government. It is finished."

Government succeeds because people are afraid of it. When that fear goes away, government will disappear.

Let's extrapolate some existing trends. Home schooling, which is growing at about 10% or better annually, swells to the point where 30-50% of the population is home schooled. Already, with just a few percent, home schoolers dominate national contests and exams out of proportion to their numbers. Imagine when students and employers wake up and realize that it is nearly impossible to win a spelling bee, a math competition, or anything else, unless one is home schooled. Government schools would collapse.

Self-defense is also growing. About 40 states have switched to shall-issue CCW laws - anybody who meets some simple objective criteria may legally carry a concealed weapon. Crime rates have fallen. Extrapolate; gun ownership is widespread. Competitions in every town. A very high percentage of snipers who can kill an invader - or a government agent - from half a mile away with one shot.

Polls show a rising distrust of government. Extrapolate to where a significant percentage are of the "Just leave me alone. Don't tax me. Don't coerce me. Let us live in peace" variety.

Under those conditions, government will collapse without a shot being fired. People will simply stop supporting it.

I would not fear an invasion under those conditions. We'd be like porcupines - nice and peaceful when left alone, but a nasty mouthful to anyone who thinks we'd make a tasty morsel.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on March 20, 2010, 09:08:34 pm
Silly-bus, you seem to have all of your historical and philosophical knowledge from PBS and other government orifices and your political learning from broadcast television and (even worse) CNN.  Learn to read something other than subtitles, statist.  (Yes, that last term is a personal insult -- the guy is welcome to sue me if he thinks my judgment is not accurate).
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on March 20, 2010, 09:11:45 pm
Terry, the Porcupine wasn't chosen as the mascot of the Free State Project by accident.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Zilabus on March 20, 2010, 10:01:20 pm
Silly-bus, you seem to have all of your historical and philosophical knowledge from PBS and other government orifices and your political learning from broadcast television and (even worse) CNN.  Learn to read something other than subtitles, statist.  (Yes, that last term is a personal insult -- the guy is welcome to sue me if he thinks my judgment is not accurate).


Glad to know your personal best response is something along the lines of "You don't know because... well... you've been brainwashed, and you're just taking it from the man, maaan."

If you want to have a genuine discussion or argument with me about politics, philosophy, or anything else, then great. If you have good points and legitimately support yourself, even better. If you're just going to throw mud, that's fine too, just don't drag me into the pig pen.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 21, 2010, 01:43:41 am
Quote
Why do these scenarios always assume that the wannabe rulers have the best guns, and the defenders have popguns?

What if wealthy defenders have the serious artillery, the no-compromise fighter jets, the pocket nukes, and so forth? What if they have a fifth column amongst the wannabe rulers?

And what if the rulers have bioweapons to wipe them out? And what if the defenders have a secret robot army? But that robot army is actually controlled by secret space aliens who-

It's a general scenario. And in general, armies raised by nation-states tend to be better equipped and organized then millita. When a private army wants to increase production and get new weapons, there's a hiring drive, they need to renegotiate rates, all the independent security companies need to work together, their customers may not want to pay the new rates, etc. A state can just say "Your taxes are up 10% this year, and we're instituting a draft!" and that's the end of it.

Plus, in his scenario, since the state is explicitly the aggressor, it's reasonable that they would not attack unless they thought they would win.

Quote
I once listened to a Russian professor discuss the collapse of the former USSR. He was asked why it happened so quickly. He replied "We were all radishes; we were just waiting for the right moment."

An AnCap society will happen when enough people wake up and say "We are all AnCap now. We do not give our consent to the government. It is finished."

Any system of ruling people that only works if a large majority of them consent to it, doesn't work. Even in democracies, leaders struggle to keep an approval rating over 50%, you're suggesting that an AnCap society only works if people are not only approving of it, but willing to make deep personal sacrifices to keep it up.

In other words, your saying an AnCap society will only happen when a large percentage of the population fanatically support it, something that has never happened ever in human history with any form of leadership. The majority are not fanatics, they're lead by small minorities.

Quote
Let's extrapolate some existing trends. Home schooling, which is growing at about 10% or better annually, swells to the point where 30-50% of the population is home schooled. Already, with just a few percent, home schoolers dominate national contests and exams out of proportion to their numbers. Imagine when students and employers wake up and realize that it is nearly impossible to win a spelling bee, a math competition, or anything else, unless one is home schooled. Government schools would collapse.

Self-defense is also growing. About 40 states have switched to shall-issue CCW laws - anybody who meets some simple objective criteria may legally carry a concealed weapon. Crime rates have fallen. Extrapolate; gun ownership is widespread. Competitions in every town. A very high percentage of snipers who can kill an invader - or a government agent - from half a mile away with one shot.

Polls show a rising distrust of government. Extrapolate to where a significant percentage are of the "Just leave me alone. Don't tax me. Don't coerce me. Let us live in peace" variety.

Under those conditions, government will collapse without a shot being fired. People will simply stop supporting it.

Just like, by extrapolating the growth rate of this puppy, I can accurately tell that that in 30 years, it's titanic wagging tail will destroy a major urban population center.

Or maybe there's limiting factors to this sort of thing and linear extrapolation is grossly oversimplifying a complicated issue.

Quote
I would not fear an invasion under those conditions. We'd be like porcupines - nice and peaceful when left alone, but a nasty mouthful to anyone who thinks we'd make a tasty morsel.

Or, here's a funny thought.

They could gas us.

An insurgent rebellion only works when the invader is not willing to just kill everyone. It's not the mode de'jour of warfare right now, but for much of human history, it was perfectly acceptable to respond to any rebellion by mass executions until the local population either suppressed the rebels themselves or there was no local population. The Roman empire made a national policy of the "Punitive Response" strategy, where ever the slightest raid or rebellion was met with overwhelming brutality towards those responsible, so that they could police themselves. Today, with modern weapons, it is very easily possible to kill every single living creature inside a nations borders, and never have to occupy them at all.

"We'll just let ourselves be invaded and then drive them off with an insurgency." Relies on the invader playing nice. The post-Stalin USSR in Afghanistan was a brutal occupier, but they were a schoolyard bully compared to the atrocities of history. Hitler, Stalin, the Great Leap Forward.

Put simply, if "We'll just let ourselves be invaded and then drive them off with an insurgency." is your strategy, then your strategy is really "Hope and pray that no one who's genuinely psychotic ever invades us."
Title: Why do the governments get the best guns?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 05:22:55 am

[/quote]
Why do these scenarios always assume that the wannabe rulers have the best guns, and the defenders have popguns?

What if wealthy defenders have the serious artillery, the no-compromise fighter jets, the pocket nukes, and so forth? What if they have a fifth column amongst the wannabe rulers?

How many private individuals do you know who could fund a private fighter jet? Remember, they require fuel, spare parts, regular maintenance, serious high-tech repair facilities, munitions storage, the munitions themselves, etc. Artillery, tanks, IFV's, etc. all require the same. These are MAJOR expenditures of cash. A private mercenary army might be able to afford them, but individuals? I'm not going to get started on the expenses incurred to keep a credible nuclear deterrent force operational and ready.

As to nukes themselves, do we really want private ownership of weapons that can level a city? If we permit it, how do we stop some nutbar like Ted Turner from nuking Texas because he hates oil? How do we stop a Rainbow Six type scenario? Do you really want Greenpeace to have access to weaponized Ebola?
Title: A poor choice of words.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 05:25:06 am

If your use of language is muddled and self-contradictory, you cannot expect to be successful at abstract thinking. Please, for Chaos' sake, stop using intellectually vapid expressions such as "libertarian state." If it uses aggression, it is not libertarian; if it does not use aggression, it is not a state.


While wildly impolite, your point is correct. Referring to an AC/Libertarian society as an AC/Libertarian "state" was a bad and unintentionally ironic choice of words. "State" here was a reference to the form of political organization the people of a given region adopt, rather than a reference to a government that would not exist under AC. The AC/Libertarian society chooses no government, while the hypothetical Autarky chooses to have a militaristic dictatorship. Since we are comparing defensive capabilities that derive from the form of government (or lack therof,) the difference is important.
Title: Even AC will have smugglers.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 05:26:19 am

Uh, like the Soviet Union? But this paragraph, like the ones the follow, is fraught with unsupported or even acknowledged assumptions. This is called "special pleading."

See, just because the USSR was more than big enough to support itself, it couldn't. The stick just does not work as well as the carrot. And if you have no real money, taxing your people to buy the "best stuff," won't get you the best stuff.


Another wildly impolite passage! Keep up the sneering, it's making your point so clearly.

"Special Pleading" is a tactic that requires claiming an exemption from rules without justifying it. Where, precisely, did I do this? History is on my side. The United States taxes its people to get the "best stuff," and we get it. Nazi Germany was a ruthless dictatorship that built some of the best weapons the world had seen up to that point. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc. are all nations that are/were theoretically cut-off from global trade. They all managed to build WMD's, and in one case actual nukes. They all manage(d) to support large armies.

Now, I hear your retort even now: "But NOBODY will be trading with them! They will not have ANY access to outside materials!"

Keep believing that. Humans are greedy. They will break informal "shunning" rules to sell to each other if they can make a reasonably good profit from it. The prices the shunned have to pay will be sky-high, and it will attract quite a lot of entrepreneurs who are morally flexible. As to being shunned themselves, criminals never think that they are going to get caught. If they did, they wouldn't commit crimes that carried huge penalties, like selling crack to 12 year-old's. The fact that there are people selling crack to 12 year-old's tells me that even massive penalties will not enforce this rule.

With enough "shunned" people, they can form informal organizations that will supply each other with what they need. For a practical example, take a look at the Jews during the Nazi reign. A large, (immorally/unjustifiably,) shunned population. The Jews managed to build informal organizations of smugglers and distributors that could get them much of what they needed, despite very nasty penalties for doing business with them.

Finally, why care about the rest of the rules if you are already shunned? Yes, people will be armed. However, if you and three or four shunned buddies can unite to rob people, what is the harm? It's not like you can be shunned twice, If that hot dog vendor won't sell you a hot dog, shoot him and take it. If that family won't give your gang all their possessions, shoot your way in and take them. What makes you think this won't work for a country, as well?
Title: How do I cite a practical example?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 05:30:05 am
Show me some real world examples instead of special pleading and inherently unrealistic scenarios. While the theoretical benefits of a stateless society are sneered at as pie-in-the-sky, they nowhere match the the dystopian fantasies of those who always want to bend a knee to the "all powerful" state. This amazes me, because nowhere do you see a state that works. They appear to work only long enough to melt down and collapse of their own weight.

You're right. Governments are immoral, ineffective and inefficient. They are almost inevitably a nightmare. However, there are not a lot of states collapsing and fading away. Afganistan pre-9/11, Somalia... Nations tend to replace their old governments with a new ones. Point out one nation that has collapsed where the citizens replaced it with nothing, and it lasted, and your historical inevitability argument might work.

But are there any practical examples of AC governments? No. Almost all of the instances I've seen discussed in previous topics have been temporary, or protected by an army that was not actively present in the area (like the Wild West.) We have never seen an AC state forced to defend itself against outside invasion. In fact, there has never been an actual AC state. Every discussion is totally hypothetical. We have to argue from what we know about human nature, and history.

What I know is that human beings tend to be greedy, power-hungry, and aggressive. A certain percentage will become criminals or pirates. A certain percentage will try to preach their ideology of statism and attract that certain percentage who happen to be sheep. Even in a world entirely ruled by the principles of AC, some jerk will periodically rise up and create problems for everybody else with their totalitarian ideas, and they will attract followers. These people will need to be stopped, or at the very least, deterred.

For deterrence, there is nothing like a standing army.
Title: Why we need a state with three powers to run the Armed Forces
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 05:31:24 am

A society of individuals, on the other hand, is not disorganized. Market forces provide, ubiquitous, near-instantaneous self-correction. Defense against aggression is a marketable service. (I leave the details of how to do it as an exercise for the student. Hint: white there are multiple ways this can be done, a lot of them are just a more sophisticated solution, similar to free market fire departments.)


Free market armies have been tried. They can work, but on some occasions you are going to need a state-run force, particularly for defense of the homeland. Specifically, you are going to need 3 powers:

1) Eminent Domain - Limited here to those purposes that are specifically related to defense.
 
Here's another wildly unrealistic example for you:
Imagine that the year is 1980. West Germany decides to go AC. A theoretical communist atrocity denier (CAD) owns a farm on a slight, but strategically vital, hill in the Fulda Gap. Mercenaries are being paid to defend the area against the massive Soviet armies of tanks that will inevitably sweep across the Frankfurt plain, right past the CAD's farm. As war approaches, the mercs ask the CAD to sell their property, so they can set up a Forward Observer post (a.k.a. Artillery Spotter.) The CAD, believing that the commies have gotten a bad rap, and that they will let her go on living as she likes, refuses, The lack of this vital spotting position could throw the entire defense of the Gap in to chaos because one idiot won't sell their land.

A military with the power of eminent domain could simply confiscate the property, pay the CAD, and build their post. A mercenary army, paid by patriotic German citizens, would not have this option.Their best option would be to shoot the CAD and build the post, anyway. When some person holds out for property rights in the face of an overwhelming and oncoming enemy, this is exactly the sort of thing that will end up happening. Don't believe it? How many cases of "shoot, shovel and shut up" are there every year because of the Endangered Species Act?

Unrealistic? Maybe. But if you really want to test this proposition that AC will work in a war, we need to test the outliers, the extreme examples that come up, to find out just how well it will work.

2) The power to draft - Because you are periodically going to need to demand that the free-riders pay the toll.

We could not have won WWII without the draft. WWII required us to build up our armies to colossal sizes to free Europe and the entire Pacific Rim from tyranny, and prevent the Nazis/Imperial Japanese from attacking us again. If we had to pay all of these soldiers market wages, we would have had to outbid every other unit hiring, as well as outbid every other business in America. The cost would have been wildly prohibitive.

Even if we could have funded an armed force with civilian money, could we have raised a sufficient number of troops? A lot of people would have simply said "No," and refused to fight if they had not received draft notices. Consider the Amish and Mormons. Despite their conscientious objector status, they were trained as medics, because we NEEDED them.

3) The power to tax.

Nuclear deterrence is expensive. REALLY expensive. You need the weapons. These weapons are expensive to build, maintain, hide, and deliver. You need to know when you are being attacked, which requires massive networks of satellite, aerial and ground-based detectors. You need people with the proper mentality, training and expertise to man and repair them. I could go on and on, but the simple fact is that our nuclear deterrent force costs a COLOSSAL amount of money. More, in all likelihood, than most people would be happy to pay. Without it, however, we would all be crater glass.

I could say the same thing for our SOSUS nets and ballistic missile submarines. I could say the same for aircraft carriers, minelayers/sweepers, tanks, planes and aircraft. Even infantry forces have to pay for food, water, medical care, weapons, ammunition, transport, IFV's, training, clothes, housing, etc. By the time a private is trained and ready to go, the US Army has already spent a million dollars on them. Keeping them going takes even more cash.

Knights used to be able to raise regiments because they expected to pay their men with spoils from the farms and villages they captured, and to feed them by foraging off the land. Modern armies cannot survive the same way. They require logistical tails, support facilities, intelligence networks, etc. It simply costs too-much to expect people to contribute this money voluntarily, and to keep doing so until the war is well and truly won.
Title: "Unhealthy Ideas" and NBC Warfare
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 05:32:33 am

What if your mother is actually an alien? Nothing personal, but this is the sort of silly special pleading fantasy I described above. This has never happened in the history of the real world. No state has ever been successful at keeping "unhealthy ideas from outside their borders" from coming in, no matter what amount of force was used. Show me it ever happening in real life. While you are at it, explain the benefit to the parasitic aggressor in the wholesale killing of productive "hosts" and the destruction of the things those people create.


And now, you go after my mother. A formidable debating tactic. Truly, I don't know what I was thinking, using logic and critical thinking to prove my point.

You are, however, right about a portion of your statement: No dictatorial state has ever been successful at keeping "unhealthy ideas" entirely out of their country. Nor did I ever claim that this was the case. Please clean up the remains of your straw man up before you leave. By the way, this has not stopped them from invading their neighbors who spread bad ideas anyway, see Tibet.

Your second argument, that dictatorial states have more to lose from war against producers than they have to gain is also true, but totally irrelevant. Hitler had more to lose from WWII than he had to gain. Making war on the productive British and Americans was a dumb move, but he did it anyway. Hirohito shouldn't have attacked us, but he did. I could go on citing historical examples for days, but the fact is that rationality generally doesn't enter in to the equation when you are dealing with a megalomaniacal dictator.

Finally, none of these arguments (with the exception of those addressing my parentage,) even touches on the point I was trying to make: How do you fight an Afgan-style insurgency against an enemy willing to drop sarin gas on your towns and cities? How do you fight a nuclear-armed enemy who is willing to use them without nukes of your own to make them think twice?

I'd go into this in-depth, but Jtuxyan already said it best:


An insurgent rebellion only works when the invader is not willing to just kill everyone. It's not the mode de'jour of warfare right now, but for much of human history, it was perfectly acceptable to respond to any rebellion by mass executions until the local population either suppressed the rebels themselves or there was no local population. The Roman empire made a national policy of the "Punitive Response" strategy, where ever the slightest raid or rebellion was met with overwhelming brutality towards those responsible, so that they could police themselves. Today, with modern weapons, it is very easily possible to kill every single living creature inside a nations borders, and never have to occupy them at all.

"We'll just let ourselves be invaded and then drive them off with an insurgency." Relies on the invader playing nice. The post-Stalin USSR in Afghanistan was a brutal occupier, but they were a schoolyard bully compared to the atrocities of history. Hitler, Stalin, the Great Leap Forward.

Put simply, if "We'll just let ourselves be invaded and then drive them off with an insurgency." is your strategy, then your strategy is really "Hope and pray that no one who's genuinely psychotic ever invades us."


The United States does not take and execute hostages in the face of insurgents. We do not bomb whole villages and towns, we drop smart bombs and guided artillery fire. We expend extra lives to make sure we don't kill civilians being used by insurgents as human shields. We are unique in history. Genghis Khan just killed everybody in towns that showed the slightest bit of resistance, and generally in pretty awful ways. A Genghis Khan in the world you are suggesting would render any resistance impossible as the populace you use to hide yourself would simply cease to exist.
Title: Human Nature is Red in Tooth and Claw
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 05:33:35 am

Please show me a US war that wasn't a pretext to justify killing and destruction to benefit special interests, and which actually made Americans safer.


World War II. Neither Hitler nor Hirohito were planning on adopting a "live and let live" philosophy once Europe and China were conquered. They attacked us.

As much as you might like to believe that other people will leave you alone if you are not threatening them, you are wrong. I could point to every mugging in the history of humanity, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, Hitler again, Hirohito again, the Kaiser, the British Empire under King George V, etc. There will always be people who will want what you have and who are willing to use force to take it. A lot of them work in government, true. A lot of them run governments. But this does not change the simple fact that they exist, and we need to be prepared for them domestically (by arming ourselves,) and internationally (by creating, arming, equipping and training an army.)
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 08:06:39 am
Well, a bunch of folks without support from their own or any other government seem to be doing a fair job defending themselves and their families against the best-armed military on the planet, over in a little shithole called Iraq.


Iranian intelligence and Revolutionary Guard units have been moving cash, weapons, supplies and trainers in to Iraq since before the invasion.

The same people who have been funding Al Qaeda globally similarly funded their offshoot in Iraq, and helped Afgan guerrillas infiltrate to take part in the insurgency.

Neither of these facts is any sort of secret, and they both point to a much larger truth: Very few insurgencies can survive without outside cash, supplies and safe havens. America won because Britain was distracted by the French. The Taliban had safe havens in NW Pakistan, drug money from opium poppies, and oil cash from Wahabbists in the Middle East. The FARC guerrillas in Colombia can only survive because of the kidnapping/drug revenues they bring in and their ability to cross into Venezuela. The Vietnamese had constant cash and weapon shipments from the Soviets, all sent to safe havens in neighboring countries.

Successful insurgencies require a secure, outside source of funds, a place to which the rebels can retreat, and resupply from outside.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 21, 2010, 02:49:38 pm
Don't confuse "approval ratings" with the reality. Yes, it's true that over 50% disagree with what the government is doing - more strongly than you'd know, if you listen only to what governemnt mouthpieces (including the media). But when push comes to shove, most people don't do anything about their beliefs. As fast as home schooling has risen, it's still the case that governments educate over 80% of children. Regardless of the near universal loathing for taxes, probably over 90% of us pay a lot more taxes than we'd like. In short, for all our grumbling, government still rests on a solid bedrock of tacit consent.

That can change. It did change in the former USSR. It can change in the United Socialist States of America, and we're seeing signs of that change today.

I'm not going to get into endless debates with trolls. Get yourself some books by H John Poole, a military officer with a lot more knowledge of warfare than most of us, and read what he has to say about the wars in Vietnam and the Middle East. He loves America, he's a patriot, and he believes the American military should be in the Middle East; but he'll tell you we are losing in spite of having vastly more money to throw at the problem. The short explanation: our military is organized along socialist lines; theirs is organized along AnCap lines. I've always held that socialists make better capitalists than Americans, because socialists don't have to pretend that inherently socialist forms are "really" free markets; we do. We have a government-controlled military, government-controlled schools, government-controlled health care, and we pretend it's all about freedom. Socialists are more honest about the failings of socialism; they have less invested in self-delusion than our politicians do.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Zilabus on March 21, 2010, 03:57:10 pm
Don't confuse "approval ratings" with the reality. Yes, it's true that over 50% disagree with what the government is doing - more strongly than you'd know, if you listen only to what governemnt mouthpieces (including the media). But when push comes to shove, most people don't do anything about their beliefs. As fast as home schooling has risen, it's still the case that governments educate over 80% of children. Regardless of the near universal loathing for taxes, probably over 90% of us pay a lot more taxes than we'd like. In short, for all our grumbling, government still rests on a solid bedrock of tacit consent.

That can change. It did change in the former USSR. It can change in the United Socialist States of America, and we're seeing signs of that change today.


Let's not lie to ourselves. Yes, the goverment is involved with many news and media corporations. No, they don't control them with as tight a leash as being presented. There is no evidence of this. They want to make money, and compelling news makes money. Compelling news doesn't always agree with government ideals. And if they where really controlling and supressing all media and news outlets, they could stand to do a hell of a lot better job. Even if we do assume all media and news is corrupted by the government, where are we supposed to get any information? Are there reliable news outlets that are non-government corrupted? If so, I'd honestly appreciate it if you link me to one.

While discontintment with the government is up, I don't think we can really be comparing ourselves to the situation before the Soviet Union collapsed. We haven't fallen quite so low, and even then, the USSR collapsed into smaller governments, not into a system of idealic libertarian non-government (Which is admittidly a pretty good ideal, if possible). I'm not saying the US isn't uncollapsable. I'm not saying it's immune to padagrim shifts either. I'm just saying it's likely a long way off, if at all. It takes a lot more then 50% disaproval or dislike of taxes to send people rebeling and to topple over a nation.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Sean Roach on March 21, 2010, 06:49:42 pm
Who said media is corrupted BY government.  Government, and the major media outlets are both corrupt.

If I don't like you, and I see a man burglarizing your house, but decide not to report it, is it because I'm in it with the thief, or it is because I have it in for you too, and the thief is doing you harm, which I approve of?

If the thief comes by later, and offers me an almost-new Blu-Ray player, and I buy it, is it because I'm in it with the thief, or is it because I value getting the blu-ray player over being true to you, who I don't like in the first place?

If anything, I'd say the media corrupted the government.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 22, 2010, 01:54:44 pm
Quote
I'm not going to get into endless debates with trolls. Get yourself some books by H John Poole, a military officer with a lot more knowledge of warfare than most of us, and read what he has to say about the wars in Vietnam and the Middle East. He loves America, he's a patriot, and he believes the American military should be in the Middle East; but he'll tell you we are losing in spite of having vastly more money to throw at the problem. The short explanation: our military is organized along socialist lines; theirs is organized along AnCap lines. I've always held that socialists make better capitalists than Americans, because socialists don't have to pretend that inherently socialist forms are "really" free markets; we do. We have a government-controlled military, government-controlled schools, government-controlled health care, and we pretend it's all about freedom. Socialists are more honest about the failings of socialism; they have less invested in self-delusion than our politicians do.

Uh...we successfully invaded them. We conquered Iraq and Afghanistan.

We won.

The occupation is proving difficult, yes, but if we really wanted to kill them instead of liberating them, we're in a military position to do so right now. Obviously, the US military is not really run by psychotic genocidal monsters, so that's never going to happen, but it does mean that, ultimately, they're "winning" because we're insisting upon playing nice and taking the moral high ground.

Not every invader is going to do that.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: sams on March 22, 2010, 04:11:53 pm
and what if all the service of an ''army'' were provided by a ''security industry'', like private contractors providing security service for the ''free people'', if you consider security has a good to be purchased, you wipe out the problem of how to raise a ''government still army''.
Has I posted in the armed force thread, you can have contractors competing to provide the following services :

- Ground Operation personnel : Think 500 Black Water with trained gun nuts
- SAM umbrella coverage ... to take out enemy aircraft
- Anti-ballistic & anti-missile umbrella ... to take out incoming missile. The IDF have a system called Iron Dome that protect them from Hamas Kassam rockets, which allow to selectively destroy incoming rockets
- Information Catering : like the awesome IDF UAV surveillance apparatus that make it easier to locate Hamas terrorist and prevent ambush
- Heavy Duty Services : Some armed UAV and some heavy duty precision weapons.


Now take in mind that if those services are provided for PROFITS, then any company will invest in the most capable defensive device and asymmetrical warfare capacities ... remember : Fighter, bomber, tanks and nukes are very good offensive weapons, but they are darn expensive ... and can be disabled with relatively cheap counter measures ... respectively : SAM, RPG/Hellfire and anti-ballistic missiles.

Extermination warfare is the only solution ... but the cost of such war may bankrupt the aggressor in case of defeat
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 22, 2010, 04:52:34 pm
No, we have won nothing more than a temporary occupation. We no more "won" in Iraq and Afghanistan than we "won" in Vietnam. It is not "victory" when you can't leave a base without having twenty men or more, and when some patrols don't return, when tanks and other vehicles are destroyed by IEDs.

I refer you to H John Poole; he would think you mad to describe this uneasy "truce" as having "won" the war - and these opponents have vastly lower resources than any modern AnCap society would.

I forget who it was that proposed smart munitions dropped from a space platform; the idea was that a hunk of iron with sensors and fins would be able to destroy tanks if dropped from a sufficiently great height. Robert A Heinlein suggested a larger-scale version in _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_: missiles fired from moon-based electromagnetic rails could do some serious damage.

But there's another scenario. One of the main operations of a modern AnCap society would be secure, confidential 100% reserve banking in a reliable, non-inflationary currency. It would not take long before people would prefer such banks. Imagine a call to the People's Republic of China which goes something like this.

Mr. Prime Minister? I am the head of First Agorist Bank. With me are the CEOs of the 18 largest free banks. Approximately 50 million account holders in China, including yourself and many other key leaders, do business with us. We are enforcing section 20.8B, which allows us to freeze services to those accounts in the event of violations of the Non-Aggression Principle. This embargo will end when your troops withdraw.
 



Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 22, 2010, 05:30:06 pm
Quote
No, we have won nothing more than a temporary occupation.

Because we're the good guys. We want to help and liberate the Iraqi and Afghangi people. If we wanted to exterminate them, the war would be long over, because we are in a position of being able to do that. This is why I say that "Winning a war through insurgency" only works if the enemy actually wants to occupy you instead of just kill you.

This is the point I've been trying to make.

Quote
But there's another scenario. One of the main operations of a modern AnCap society would be secure, confidential 100% reserve banking in a reliable, non-inflationary currency. It would not take long before people would prefer such banks. Imagine a call to the People's Republic of China which goes something like this.

Mr. Prime Minister? I am the head of First Agorist Bank. With me are the CEOs of the 18 largest free banks. Approximately 50 million account holders in China, including yourself and many other key leaders, do business with us. We are enforcing section 20.8B, which allows us to freeze services to those accounts in the event of violations of the Non-Aggression Principle. This embargo will end when your troops withdraw.

I'm willing to bed that after the occupation troops torture a few bankers to death the rest of them will get the image really damn quick and unfreeze those accounts, and if not, I'm sure a sufficiency demented dictator could just take it out on the local population. "For every day that passes when I don't get my money, I gas 10,000 people. Tick toc."

Vs someone who is not a vicious tyrant, an insurgency can work, but that's not a safe bet with an aggressive invader.

Quote
Extermination warfare is the only solution ... but the cost of such war may bankrupt the aggressor in case of defeat

Why? Nerve gas isn't expensive.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 23, 2010, 12:17:15 am
Who, other than a mentally deranged nutcase, would be interested in extermination warfare?

You may think the land is what makes a country rich, but that would only indicate a high degree of ignorance about economics.

The value of a country is mostly locked up in the people and their mental and social organization. Bring in unskilled people to run a great factory, and it would be useless in very short order.

Spain confiscated all the gold in South America, with no regard for the population. The result was an initial spurt of spending, followed by rampant inflation, followed by the self-destruction of their empire. This is a terrible business model.

Unlike the idiots who come up with such bizarre scorched-earth scenarios, the People's Republic of China has cooler heads who know something about business and economics. Any study of The Art of War, or the game of Go - China's preferred abstraction of strategic warfare - would make that obvious.

Peaceful trade is worth more than conquest, to any sane individuals.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 23, 2010, 02:12:58 am
Quote
Insert Quote
Who, other than a mentally deranged nutcase, would be interested in extermination warfare?

Quote
Peaceful trade is worth more than conquest, to any sane individuals.

And on what basis do you conclude that lunatics never gain control of major world powers?

I mean. Seriously.

What the hell?

Though I suppose if you ignore Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim-Jong Il, Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, the entire Assyrian Empire, the Aztec theocratic state, and every African warlord who's decreed the need for clensing by the machete it's...kind of sorta plausible.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: sams on March 23, 2010, 05:34:47 am

Quote

What the hell?

Though I suppose if you ignore Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim-Jong Il, Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, the entire Assyrian Empire, the Aztec theocratic state, and every African warlord who's decreed the need for clensing by the machete it's...kind of sorta plausible.

I get your point ... you are talking about the INSANE SCENARIO  ;D

A nutcase who is just interested in power will obviously don't find satisfied unless He gain submission of our AnCap society ... We are doomed  :o Not so fast  ;D

The Key to win such a war is make it so darn expensive  ;) By Using the following tips :

1- Target the Leadership : The Nutcase bastard being first on the list, you can derail the war effort by using targeted assination of the top level of command
2- Assimetric Warfare : A modern army is a formidable machine, but a machine with some nasty problems, target supplies lines and other strategic assets and you will win ... ie: Ballistic anti-aircraft carrier missiles or more nastier stuff.
3- An armed populace : any Nut will likely want the population to be desarmed, but if this an AnCap society, at least 80% of people will have some kind of weapons home, so commiting troops to disarme those people will require a huge army and could backlash has radicalizing more people.
Before sending the Jews to the gaz chambers, Hitler had then surrender their personal weapons through gun control. During the last days of the Guetto of Warsaw, the Jews still managed to get some rifles and resisted the SS ... they were crushed, but they made the point that if you want to live never give up you weapons. those who didn't get out alive of Germany

But in the scenario of just a normal warfare by some greedy and not crazy leader, the AnCap society can win, especial if the economical cost of the war would be astronomical for the attacker
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: dough560 on March 23, 2010, 06:12:13 am
Every mass murderer, removed private weapons from the subject population.  Without access to personal weapons, there is no control for the excesses of government.  

Today's firearms take relatively little practice or training for the operator to be effective.  Anyone who can manipulate a weapon's action and press a trigger is a threat to the person initiating force.  Every scenario left the person initiating force without consequences.  A determined population would strike back.  Picking the method, place and time of attack.  John Ringo's book, "Live Free or Die" examined this.  The controlling factor is the ideology of the threatened population.  It would depend on how much damage they wish to do, and to whom.  Not excluding, killing the person responsible.  Regardless of cost.

Extermination is expensive in energy, equipment, personnel and time.  John Ross discussed this in "Unintended Consequences" recounting the German response to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during WWII.  When a population has nothing to loose, their effectiveness may only be limited by ignorance.

As a people, we have a belief in the "Rule of Law".  Idealistically, laws based on our constitution.  As a result, when courts fail to correct actions and laws perceived to be unconstitutional, populations have risen and re-instituted constitutional government.

Military personnel swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution.  Individual understanding of the constitution guides each military member as to lawful orders which are executed in the context of civil statute, the constitution and the law of war.  Many military personnel take their oath and their understanding of the consequences of swearing the oath to heart.

Time and again small groups have demonstrated an effect out of proportion to their size.  Only in limited circumstances would  a small team stand in a toe-to-toe fight with a military unit.  The preferred action  would be picking the time and place and removing the officers and senior non-commissioned officers, bypassing enlisted personnel.  Or destroying equipment essential to the military mission.  Enough "stings" and the military unit fails.



 
















.  
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Gillsing on March 23, 2010, 06:20:47 am
But the 'insane' scenario has already happened several times in human history? War is insanity? Oh no, don't worry about the lifeboat to passenger ratio, this ship isn't going to sink. That would be insane. ::)

We have the governments we have largely because people think we need them to protect against some even worse types of governments that we really DO NOT WANT. Maybe they're wrong, but I have yet to see a truly free and lasting society that could prove that. As for extermination wars, maybe we'll get them if the planet gets seriously overcrowded. People aren't that valuable. And nationalism is once again rising. Give it a century, and maybe "shut the borders" becomes "throw them out" and then "we need more space/resources". Or maybe we can put all that behind us? I don't know.

Let's extrapolate some existing trends. Home schooling, which is growing at about 10% or better annually, swells to the point where 30-50% of the population is home schooled. Already, with just a few percent, home schoolers dominate national contests and exams out of proportion to their numbers. Imagine when students and employers wake up and realize that it is nearly impossible to win a spelling bee, a math competition, or anything else, unless one is home schooled. Government schools would collapse.
Could it be that certain home-schoolers drill their kids to excel at either spelling or math, or that the kids strongly prefer one of those subjects, and the flexibility of home-schooling allows them to indulge at the expense of other subjects? Not that this is necessarily the case, as I'm sure that home-schooling by an enthusiastic parent is just fine, but I wouldn't judge the general quality by limited contests or exams. And what about the kids without enthusiastic or educated parents? Surely there will be a demand for the Walmart of schools for those parents who can't afford to send their kids to private tutors? And don't a lot of big employers really, really like employees who've already been taught to stay in line and do what they're told? ;)
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 23, 2010, 05:39:53 pm
Most people vastly overestimate the cost of a free-market education. This is due to the terrible misconception that schooling requires 12 years times 180 days times 6 hours per day. Of course it's expensive to hire somebody to teach for such a great length of time. It has been shown that 30 to 100 hours is enough to teach a motivated student to read, write, and do arithmetic with a degree of proficiency which exceeds that of a great many high school graduates.

James Tooley has researched modern free-market education in India and Africa, in places where people have far fewer resources than Americans do. He found that many such parents prefer free-market schools to government schools, and sacrifice quite a bit to send their children to free-market schools. If they can afford it, I have no fear whatsoever that  Americans would lack the resources to do so.

As for this hypothetical imbalance, it does not take vast resources to become skilled at math or spelling or whatever. It requires some commitment, but far less than you imagine. I have a grandson, about a week shy of his 8th birthday, whose math skills were tested last year at the 6th grade level, who has been enjoying binary arithmetic, negative numbers, powers and roots, fractions, decimals, and cryptography for a few years already. His parents do not spend six hours per day drilling him. I suspect he spends about one or two hours per day in instruction.

His education is directed not by his parents, but by his interests. They act more as facilitators. Any child who wants to learn can be amazingly efficient. It took me about 5 minutes to explain negative numbers to my son, who asked "what is 7 - 5" at the age of 5 or 6. It took just a few minutes to explain to my grandson how to sum n numbers, as in the formula n(n+1)/2 -- and he  easily generalizes to many related problems. When tested on "complex problem solving" ability, he scored at the 13th grade level. When I asked him the sum of the even numbers from 2 to 50, he solved it mentally in an instant.

I keep three principles in mind. One, always answer as concisely and accurately as possible. Two, stop while the child is still interested. Leave the rest for another day. Three, point the way for the child to expand further.







Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 24, 2010, 03:12:58 pm
Quote
I get your point ... you are talking about the INSANE SCENARIO 

It's not insane if it's happened multiple times throughout history. For many dictators, it's not about what's economicaly best, it's about control. Anyone who won't bow will die, until either the population submits, or there is no one left.

Quote
1- Target the Leadership : The Nutcase bastard being first on the list, you can derail the war effort by using targeted assination of the top level of command

Name one historical incident where a major offensive war was stopped by the assassination of the aggressors leader.

Quote
2- Assimetric Warfare : A modern army is a formidable machine, but a machine with some nasty problems, target supplies lines and other strategic assets and you will win ... ie: Ballistic anti-aircraft carrier missiles or more nastier stuff.

First, spell check. Second, you're wrong. There's no dispute on this matter, you're flat out, demonstrably incorrect. A modern army's initial invasion has never been repelled by private millita or insurgents. Never.

Quote
3- An armed populace : any Nut will likely want the population to be desarmed, but if this an AnCap society, at least 80% of people will have some kind of weapons home, so commiting troops to disarme those people will require a huge army and could backlash has radicalizing more people.

Why would he want to disarm them?

Seriously. You arn't getting this. For someone who's *really serious* about taking over the world, you don't disarm or occupy the target populations, you kill them. That is the scenario we are discussing. Unless your gun gives you an immunity to nerve gas, it's not going to help you in this instance.

Quote
Extermination is expensive in energy, equipment, personnel and time.  John Ross discussed this in "Unintended Consequences" recounting the German response to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during WWII.  When a population has nothing to loose, their effectiveness may only be limited by ignorance.
Quote
Time and again small groups have demonstrated an effect out of proportion to their size.  Only in limited circumstances would  a small team stand in a toe-to-toe fight with a military unit.  The preferred action  would be picking the time and place and removing the officers and senior non-commissioned officers, bypassing enlisted personnel.  Or destroying equipment essential to the military mission.  Enough "stings" and the military unit fails.

The germans did not use chemical, nuclear, or bioweapons. It seems wrong given how many people they killed, but compared to what their technology was capable of -- much less what modern technology is capable of -- their genocide was very inefficient. They were interested in eliminating *one part* of the population and sparing the rest, and did not use all the tools at their disposal to do so. If they had wanted to kill *everyone* in the occupied countries, they would have had a much easier time of it.

Quote
Most people vastly overestimate the cost of a free-market education. This is due to the terrible misconception that schooling requires 12 years times 180 days times 6 hours per day. Of course it's expensive to hire somebody to teach for such a great length of time. It has been shown that 30 to 100 hours is enough to teach a motivated student to read, write, and do arithmetic with a degree of proficiency which exceeds that of a great many high school graduates.

Even if that were true (which frankly, I doubt) school covers more then RWA, a basic understanding of history, government, science, politics, the world, etc, is required to be a citizen who can meaningfully participate in the democratic system. Furthermore, even if you are correct, that's an excellent argument for reforming public school to be of a much shorter duration, rather then an argument for private school.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 25, 2010, 12:54:08 am
If all you are saying is that the initial invasion would succeed -- so what? That's true even of governments - you can't stop a determined force from landing somewhere, destroying some stuff. Even America, with the biggest military in the world, can't claim to be able to stop a determined invader. In fact, it can't even defend the Pentagon itself from a few guys armed with box cutters.

So who cares? The point is, to actually conquer a country, you need boots on the ground. Those boots on the ground are vulnerable to guerilla warfare, as American troops are discovering in Afghanistan. I'll bet you're still too lazy and pig-headed to read the books of H John Poole, and are still clinging to your bizarre belief that we "won" in the Middle East because we broke a lot of things. "Mission Accomplished" and all that glorious pollyanna nonsense.

What is actually happening in the Middle East is that this government is rapidly bankrupting itself, which is exactly what Osama bin Laden predicted would happen. The fable of the wasp killing a car filled with four grown men is instructive. The right application of force can cause a big, massive socialist enterprise such as our military to flail about madly and self-destruct, as did the former USSR, and the US of A is following in their footsteps as blindly as ever, guided by brilliant people with all the misguided smarts of yourself.

It is possible to be very bright, very well-educated, and very incapable of looking at the strategic big picture. Remember your history; "Another victory such as this will destroy us."

America broke lots of things and killed lots of people. Yet American soldiers are afraid to venture outside of their compounds alone. Meanwhile the head of Iran can visit Iraq without a massive convoy of bodyguards. This is evidence that America conquered Iraq? No, it is evidence that America swallowed a mouth full of porcupine, and is suffering a very bad case of indigestion. Trillion-dollar deficits - higher than at any time since WW II. A $12 trillion official debt, and another $80 trillion unfunded liabilities ... that's a success story? In your dreams, in your dreams. That's the road to bankruptcy.

If Afghanistan were an AnCap society as prosperous as Switzerland, such a hypothetical invasion would be like a ship battering itself to pieces on a rock. You imagine stupid things like governments which can make secret emplacements, and corporations which can not. You can make no argument without assuming that your opponents are riddled with weaknesses.

Evidently, you never understood the phrase "know your enemy" - you think "construct a straw man" is good military strategy. What a waste of brainpower!



Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: dough560 on March 25, 2010, 06:36:02 am
No, the WWII Germans killed anyone, not like them.  That definition expanded over time from the Jews to the Gypsies and so on.  Yes their methods were inefficient and I agree it would have been easier for them to kill everyone and let God sort them out.  The problem with that, there wouldn't have been any slaves to work in their factories or farms.

As for chemical and biological weapons, the Germans were told:  You use them, We use them.  Mutual Assured Destruction sound familiar?

Nuclear Weapons:  Apparently the Germans kept shooting themselves in the foot while trying to develop them.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: one eye chuck on March 25, 2010, 10:47:35 am
Hey Guys, Gals and even to those who ain't sure what they are,
I've been crazy busy the last few days and have not had a chance to get here. Wow, is there a lot of information/opinion in this thread. I don't know if I mentioned that I am looking for good resources on AnCap/Libertarian thought and I think I've found a few, thanks to all for the tips.

As far as the fire department thing, Sandy, you were right. I didn't think it through. Every time I head into the Northwoods, I see banners advertising some kind of dinner/dance for the local volunteer FD. Well, I've been accused of being blind in one eye and unable to see out the other, just another case of it.

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see direct replies to the points H.L. (and I) made about the fact that there will probably always be some kind of (crazy?) "strongman" and that there will be people who "need" to follow them. Nor did I see anything on the idea that, left to their own devices, enough people would lie, cheat, steal, kill, maim, rape and pillage if they thought they could get away with it, that it would make being their neighbor a real pain in the ass. Don't believe me? Then please explain the number of prisoners in the US. (Kind of a bad example - a lot of them are in for non-violent, "victimless" crimes such as simple possession of an herb that the gov't. [ in its infinite wisdom ] has deemed sooo harmful that we the sheeple should not be trusted to make our own decision regarding its use.)  OOpps, time to reel it back in  ;)

I can't say that I fully support the idea of home/private schooling. I will admit that part of the so-called education in our public schools is indoctrination and that the quality could be vastly improved. However, the indoctrination is mostly in the social graces of cooperation, being a good sport, teamwork, etc. ( I know I'm gonna get an earful on that one). Would you support a school or curriculum  that indoctrinated its pupils in racial or religious superiority?  They already exist in the world. I would rather live in society that promoted tolerance than hate.

In an AnCap/Libertarian society, what's to stop a corporation or individual from establishing a monopoly and pushing prices as far as the market will bear? ( See Standard Oil in the 1880's) Time and again, people who have no empathy for their fellow man have used that lack of empathy to rise to power and stay there. ( Do you know why CEO's and their ilk get paid so much? They are highly functioning sociopaths who can sleep at night despite the fact their decisions have resulted in real harm. There are not a lot of people who fit that bill, hence the market works! )

I have had kind of an epiphany on the subject of liberty while reading the boards here. I think a really "free" society can only exist on  a frontier.
Too many people need some kind of authority to guide them, ( how else to explain organized religion?) they would clamor for government. Pioneers, on the other hand, are an independent bunch to begin with. They are comfortable being self-reliant. They know, in their bones, that the cavalry will not come charging over the hill to save them. They are the kind of people who would make such a society work. They are the type who would be willing to put their lives on the line for their ideals. Unfortunately, there ain't enough such folks and we're out of room over the next hill. RAH was right when he said "If a place requires its people to carry ID, it's time to lift ship. It's too late to try to change it and that society is doomed to fail," or something to that effect.

This is all hypothetical, of course. We have not yet seen an AnCap/Lib society.My problem isn't with any political philosophy, it's with human nature. Too many idiots "need" government to either take care of them or keep them in line. Libertarianism is the idea that given the liberty to do so, people will act rationally in their own enlightened self interest. If that were the case, no one would start smoking, every one would strive to get as much education as they could handle and no one would drive piece o'sh*t cars with bad brakes or elect idiots who trample on our rights and wipe their asses with the Constitution. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but  the older I get, the more I believe that Malthus was right- we shall eventually perish in our own shit.

Holy cats, this is a long post! Please, poke holes in my arguments. I love it when intelligent discourse leads me to new (to me) ideas and ways of looking at the world.

P.S. To the staff of Big Head Press: Keep up the good work!  I love your stuff! It actually gives me a bit of hope for the future.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on March 25, 2010, 01:26:24 pm
I'm just going to hit a few high points. Otherwise, we might run out of new EFT.

As far as the fire department thing, Sandy, you were right. I didn't think it through. Every time I head into the Northwoods, I see banners advertising some kind of dinner/dance for the local volunteer FD. Well, I've been accused of being blind in one eye and unable to see out the other, just another case of it.

Yes, there are many ways to skin this cat. I was actually thinking of early New England private fire companies that worked on an insurance model. Each of them gave policy holders a big wrought iron logo to post on their house. That way, there was no question about which fire company would fight the fire. Generally, fire companies would fight fires in homes that were covered by other insurance companies or when human life was at risk. Your barn catches on fire, but there is no threat to human life? If you aren't insured, burn, baby burn.

I can't say that I fully support the idea of home/private schooling.,, I would rather live in society that promoted tolerance than hate.

In which case, you certainly cannot support government schools. Better not write an essay that questions global warming. Draw a picture of a gun, go to jail (or at least the cops are called). Say that Lincoln was a dictator or that the South was Constitutionally correct about secession, and see how much "tolerance" you get.

In an AnCap/Libertarian society, what's to stop a corporation or individual from establishing a monopoly and pushing prices as far as the market will bear? ( See Standard Oil in the 1880's)

The free market, unencumbered by a state which protects Standard Oil, will stop the establishment of a monopoly. Take the government out of the picture and artificial monopolies are not possible. (Sometime you will tell everyone the story of two trading posts that competed on the Navajo reservation.)

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: one eye chuck on March 25, 2010, 01:50:42 pm
Quote
I'm just going to hit a few high points. Otherwise, we might run out of new EFT.


PLEASE please please.... Don't ever let these boards take your time away from writing EFT. Like I said, your work gives me a bit of hope for the future.   ;D
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on March 25, 2010, 02:00:40 pm
Quote
I'm just going to hit a few high points. Otherwise, we might run out of new EFT.


PLEASE please please.... Don't ever let these boards take your time away from writing EFT. Like I said, your work gives me a bit of hope for the future.   ;D


Thank you, your wish is my command*

Certain conditions may apply.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: sams on March 25, 2010, 02:27:04 pm
I can't say that I fully support the idea of home/private schooling. I will admit that part of the so-called education in our public schools is indoctrination and that the quality could be vastly improved. However, the indoctrination is mostly in the social graces of cooperation, being a good sport, teamwork, etc. ( I know I'm gonna get an earful on that one). Would you support a school or curriculum  that indoctrinated its pupils in racial or religious superiority?  They already exist in the world. I would rather live in society that promoted tolerance than hate.

I doubt that that public schools can ever be improved ... they have just no feedback mechanism that tell them when the parents are please or not. A solution would be to have voucher ... maybe but first you have to face the teacher union. In almost all countries ''educational reforms' fail because most of the time the problems are drowned with money  :-\

About the racial part of your comment ... may I remember you that public schools are the most racially focused and there seems to have no practical solution to this problem.

but for specific question about the racially or religiously oriented curriculum you must know that most parents send their children to school to learn something useful and earn a living ... not to learn religion ... this is the church job. But even then if a school do have some sort of religious content, it is relatively not a problem and I know it because I studied in catholic and protestant schools. Attending the first was relatively a problem since I'm an evangelical ... but the schools required all to take part of ceremonies at the chapel, but when I was back home I had sessions of active ''deprogramming'' ... the same occurred with those who were Muslim or from another variety of Christianity : Go to school ... ignore and play low profile during religious subject class, then go home and have Daddy ready you the Coran or thora or bible

Private schools are also better to deal with racial differences because tend to be classified according income: there are schools for the poor, the middle class and the rich.
Since there are people of all race and colour in all these 3 categories, you have pretty much a more ''diverse'' ambient for your children, especially if you remember that tuitions doesn't have skin colour.

What can we about some crazy hippies who go with their children in some kind of Wacko community were they worship aliens and the kids learn and imaginary language ... well we can't do much about it  ::)

If you care about the children and fear they get a crappy education, stet in, built a school and provide the best curriculum available ... believe it is a sweet business ;D

You can also get active and lunch a think thank about it  ;)

Most of the problems of a libertarian society have no theoretical solution ... or you are calling for a government, if you really want to help : identify the problem, gather like minded people and launch a voluntary enterprise, for profit or not
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 25, 2010, 06:14:12 pm
Quote
If all you are saying is that the initial invasion would succeed -- so what? That's true even of governments - you can't stop a determined force from landing somewhere, destroying some stuff.

You mean like how the Germans successfully landed on Englands shores during the -- oh wait. Well, lets to be fair, there was a sea gap there. So I guess it's more like how they invaded all of Russia and were only driven out by a passive...no, wait, the Red Army stopped them before they could. Then...erm...just like how the US conquered all of North Korea in the Korean war, but only ...uh. No, the Chinese stopped us at the DMZ there too, didn't they?

Well, damn. Looks like you're wrong, as usual.

Quote
So who cares? The point is, to actually conquer a country, you need boots on the ground.

I'm going to repeat this as many times as it takes you to get it. I do apologize if this seems abrasive, rude, or trollish, but I'm getting rather annoyed with making this point over and over again.

The scenario we are discussing is the DESTRUCTION of a nation by an aggressor, not conquering. There is NO OCCUPATION, there is no rebuilding.

Quote
What is actually happening in the Middle East is that this government is rapidly bankrupting itself, which is exactly what Osama bin Laden predicted would happen. The fable of the wasp killing a car filled with four grown men is instructive. The right application of force can cause a big, massive socialist enterprise such as our military to flail about madly and self-destruct, as did the former USSR, and the US of A is following in their footsteps as blindly as ever, guided by brilliant people with all the misguided smarts of yourself.

It is possible to be very bright, very well-educated, and very incapable of looking at the strategic big picture. Remember your history; "Another victory such as this will destroy us."

The scenario we are discussing is the DESTRUCTION of a nation by an aggressor, not conquering. There is NO OCCUPATION, there is no rebuilding.

Quote
America broke lots of things and killed lots of people. Yet American soldiers are afraid to venture outside of their compounds alone. Meanwhile the head of Iran can visit Iraq without a massive convoy of bodyguards. This is evidence that America conquered Iraq? No, it is evidence that America swallowed a mouth full of porcupine, and is suffering a very bad case of indigestion. Trillion-dollar deficits - higher than at any time since WW II. A $12 trillion official debt, and another $80 trillion unfunded liabilities ... that's a success story? In your dreams, in your dreams. That's the road to bankruptcy.

If Afghanistan were an AnCap society as prosperous as Switzerland, such a hypothetical invasion would be like a ship battering itself to pieces on a rock. You imagine stupid things like governments which can make secret emplacements, and corporations which can not. You can make no argument without assuming that your opponents are riddled with weaknesses.

The scenario we are discussing is the DESTRUCTION of a nation by an aggressor, not conquering. There is NO OCCUPATION, there is no rebuilding.

Quote
Evidently, you never understood the phrase "know your enemy" - you think "construct a straw man" is good military strategy. What a waste of brainpower!

The scenario we are discuss-

No, wait, I'm sorry, wrong answer there.

You obviously have no idea what a "strawman" is and have failed to in any way address my points.

There we go.

Quote
No, the WWII Germans killed anyone, not like them.  That definition expanded over time from the Jews to the Gypsies and so on.

Yeah, news flash? The population of Europe is mostly white. When they start gassing the lilly-white sections of the population as well as the slaves, jews, etc, *then* they will be killing "everyone." I'm sorry, but killing all the minorities is a long damn way from everyone.

Quote
In which case, you certainly cannot support government schools. Better not write an essay that questions global warming. Draw a picture of a gun, go to jail (or at least the cops are called). Say that Lincoln was a dictator or that the South was Constitutionally correct about secession, and see how much "tolerance" you get.

How does that have anything to do with teaching hate? Global Warming has nothing to do with hate or tolerance -- the school doesn't tolerate ideas they think are incorrect the same way they woudln't tolerate a student saying 2+2=5, but they don't tell you to round up and kill people who don't believe in Global Warming. They don't tell you to discriminate against them. They don't tell you to marginalize them. They just say that Global Warming is real, and while you're free to say otherwise, you will fail the class if you do.

Quote
I doubt that that public schools can ever be improved ... they have just no feedback mechanism that tell them when the parents are please or not.

And why is the parents being pleased the criteria?

If a parent wants their child to believer that black people, jews, gypsies, etc, are subhuman, I'd imagine they would be *very* unhappy with the school for teaching their child otherwise. They won't be pleased in the slightest. The same goes with luddites who's kids have to learn about science and technology, hippies who's kids have to learn that capitalism is not actually evil, and Christians who have to learn that gays don't actually have a secret conspiracy to destroy decency in the world.

The goal of public schooling is to give the child an accurate and unbiased view of the world and equip them with the knowledge they need to make a living for themselves. And if that pleases the parents, so much the better, but pleasing the parents is not the goal.

Quote
Private schools are also better to deal with racial differences because tend to be classified according income: there are schools for the poor, the middle class and the rich.
Since there are people of all race and colour in all these 3 categories

Not evenly distributed.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Sean Roach on March 25, 2010, 08:17:06 pm
... and Christians who have to learn that gays don't actually have a secret conspiracy to destroy decency in the world.

They don't?   :>

The goal of public schooling is to give the child an accurate and unbiased view of the world and equip them with the knowledge they need to make a living for themselves. And if that pleases the parents, so much the better, but pleasing the parents is not the goal.
The goal of public schooling is to produce workers for the factories, checkers for the stores, soldiers for the army, and farm hands for the farms.

Public schooling is far from unbiased.  Each group strives to get its own bias represented, but some are more successful than others.  When a class of grade schoolers is taught to sing the praises of Obama in the months leading up to the election, something isn't right.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 25, 2010, 08:34:19 pm
O come on, that hoary old "socializaiton" myth? Excuse me, no offense intended, but you really need to get out more.

Part of the problem is that you have been indoctrinated to think that "schooling" is something that happens inside four walls of a school. Therefore, you extrapolate and think that "home schooling" means kids are locked up inside the home all the time.

That is almost never the case. First off, home schooling is VASTLY more efficient than the nonsense in government schools. How else can you explain my home schooled grandson, when he was five, exchanging cryptograms with me and solving them? How do you explain his facility with mental arithmetic? Show me a government kindergarten where students are enjoying that level of math. Now almost 8 years of age, he knows about fractions, decimals, negative numbers, powers, exponents, number bases - and can handle all of these fluently without needing calculator or even paper or pencil.

Now, is he chained to a desk for 12 hours per day? Nope. He's taught at a level of efficiency which is totally unimaginable to people who think that government schools are the be-all and end-all. His math lessons typically last a few minutes. Introduce the idea, explain it, test it, and it's done. Go do something more fun.

That leaves him, and millions of other home schoolers with lots of free time which they use to socialize - to mix with a great variety of people of all different ages. This, in my mind, is better practice for real-world social skills than this bizarre idea of keeping children in limited groups where everyone is plus-or-minus six months of the same age.

My daughter recently posted that her son prefers piano lessons to folding laundry. He - like many other home schoolers - enjoys learning; he seeks out and devours knowledge.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 26, 2010, 02:10:40 am
Quote
They don't?   :>

It's not really an exclusive conspiracy.

Quote
Public schooling is far from unbiased.  Each group strives to get its own bias represented, but some are more successful than others.  When a class of grade schoolers is taught to sing the praises of Obama in the months leading up to the election, something isn't right.

If true, then that's a failure in execution, certainly. But it doesn't invalidate the idea or the purpose.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: sams on March 26, 2010, 02:28:44 am
Quote
How does that have anything to do with teaching hate? Global Warming has nothing to do with hate or tolerance -- the school doesn't tolerate ideas they think are incorrect the same way they woudln't tolerate a student saying 2+2=5, but they don't tell you to round up and kill people who don't believe in Global Warming. They don't tell you to discriminate against them. They don't tell you to marginalize them. They just say that Global Warming is real, and while you're free to say otherwise, you will fail the class if you do.

Because public schools and college can't become center for the diffusion of stupid ideas and indoctrination ... actually they are, just visit the departement at universities:

Social studies : class warfare and a lot of Karl Marx
African studies : Because racism can never dry up ... or we can't blame the cash out of the white, jews and Asians
Women studies : Because abortions should be mandatory and femiNazis may stay relevant in an era when they are irrelevant

or shutting down Ann Coulter because she ''can commit a hate crime'' ... refuse to discuss middle east conflict by refusing Jew to give lectures ... will giving intellectual base for killing Israeli .... all of this just at the University of Ottawa, Canada

Public schools do marginalize those who think differently try again

Quote
And why is the parents being pleased the criteria?

Because the parents are the one who have the most interest with their children education, they are the ones who most care about them and should be the ones in charge of the education. Who do you want to please ? the teachers Unions ? the unicorn or the almighty president ? sorry I repeated my self :D or do you want to please the kids ... wait this aint possible at least till their 25 because they are irresponsible ... and under the responsibility of their parents who happen to be the ones who pay for the education. If the kid want to be the one pleased, then He should be the one working, which may indicate that he have maturity to take decisions


If a parent wants their child to believer that black people, jews, gypsies, etc, are subhuman, I'd imagine they would be *very* unhappy with the school for teaching their child otherwise. They won't be pleased in the slightest. The same goes with luddites who's kids have to learn about science and technology, hippies who's kids have to learn that capitalism is not actually evil, and Christians who have to learn that gays don't actually have a secret conspiracy to destroy decency in the world.

First : Yes christian kids must learn that homosexuality is sin and they shouldn't neither indulge to it or be ashamed to speak their mind.

For the rest, this would be all true if the public schools had in fact eliminated the following groups :

- Dope smoking socialist college kids : still PLENTY of them arround
- Racist and Bigot : the new tendency is to produce latinos and black ones now ... Progress !
- Hippies and Gothic : Plenty

and has bonus Marijuana is still the preferred relaxant on campus ... great accomplishment !

Quote
The goal of public schooling is to give the child an accurate and unbiased view of the world and equip them with the knowledge they need to make a living for themselves. And if that pleases the parents, so much the better, but pleasing the parents is not the goal.

Wrong : The goal of parents is to educate their kids and in the process they can subcontract a school, so the school must please the parents. So tell me who should be please ? or better who is the one with the best interest in the children future ?

Quote
Quote
Private schools are also better to deal with racial differences because tend to be classified according income: there are schools for the poor, the middle class and the rich.
Since there are people of all race and colour in all these 3 categories

Not evenly distributed.

Firstly tell me who is guilty that there are not evenly distributed ? if you are an atheist I have a feeling that you will lack a place to complain lol

The point is that private school allow kids to be in the most diverse ambient possible, because the fact that each parent can pay the tuition doesn't mean that they are all white or Asians, it mean that they are maybe middle class folks who can have a tea and talk business and Nascar ... but still may have differences of opinions

Lastly schools is not about all the crap you say, it is about giving the kids an education that give them a chance in life, and this sometime means that parents may take the decision not to send their kids in the nice religious school ... but instead in the best college around town.

PS: @Ytxuan or Xuan : So unless extermination you have no point ?
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: dough560 on March 26, 2010, 12:27:26 pm
jtuxyan, A totalitarian nation so afraid and threatened by a libertarian society, they launch a ground war of extinction?  Major Loony Tunes.  Talk about a no win situation.....for them.  The internal controls, stresses and abuses used to dominate the totalitarian population would tear the society apart.  Especially with the population seeing the libertarian's freedom and prosperity.  When the totalitarians institute force, and at that level,  The libertarians will not just stand there and let themselves be killed or enslaved. The libertarian society would be masters of public affairs, communications, marketing.  However you want to describe the skill set.  You better believe they will get their message through.  With the totalitarian army out of the country, being killed and suborned  by the libertarians, can you say "Revolution"?

You see militias as portrayed by our media.  In our prohibitionist society, government forces have what they perceive to be superior weapons and they enact laws to ensure it stays that way (contrary to the 2nd Amendment).  A libertarian society without economic restrictions or weapons prohibitions would have free access to arms.  You may not be a member of our gun culture, but I am.  Many of us work up to steadily more powerful weapons.  Our version of keeping up with the Jones-es.  Taxes and prohibition are the only reason many of us do not have machineguns, grenade launchers, etc....  They're fun!

Who said anything about a guerrilla war,  Think Custer and the Little Big Horn.  (The MPs did.) If you've read "The Probability Broach", "American Zone", or "Venus Belt" you're familiar with the Webly Electric Pistol.  Now lets play what if.  A barrel extension raising velocity from 10, 000 to 25/30,000 feet per second.  Add a shoulder stock and optical sights.  How about a ring foil grenade that would slide down over the barrel.  (About twenty years ago, a navy experimental rail gun fired a one inch square block of lexan at a three foot thick battleship steel plate at 25,000 feet per second from 2.5 miles.  The block penetrated 2.5 feet, leaving a crater about three feet in diameter.)  You really think the libertarians wouldn't have larger then pistol versions of this weapon capable of chewing-up aircraft and armor?  Heck the kinetic energy from the pistol would ruin the day of anyone in an armored personnel carrier, let alone their version of the Hummer.

Even if the Webly didn't exist in your scenario, the libertarians would have a conventional difference.

As for the WWII Germans killing everyone.  They killed millions of people who differed from them in the foods they ate, color of their hair, the shape of their noses, language, religion, etc....  They all had the same skin color.

Any kitchen table chemist can make any number of chemical agents in a very short time period.  You really think the libertarians wouldn't have access to the formulas for things like Sarin or Mustard Gas.  Delivery systems are just as easy.  Again, think:  Mutual Assured Destruction.  With the caveat, the toleration government would have to worry about the reactions of an individual, not a government.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 26, 2010, 10:54:02 pm
If some ignorant madman is hell-bent on the destruction of an AnCap society, what do you expect the response will be?

Total, absolute, devastating force, right where it matters - delivered by powerful, wealthy, inventive, resourceful people.

If you expect anything less than that, you are a prime candidate for a Darwin Award.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: quadibloc on March 27, 2010, 09:09:09 am
Say that Lincoln was a dictator or that the South was Constitutionally correct about secession, and see how much "tolerance" you get.
Even if those statements are correct, they are irrelevant. The South was guilty of the initiation of force on a massive scale against its dark-skinned residents. Admittedly, government schools do get this history wrong; somehow, they try to teach that Lincoln was morally superior to John Brown.

Of course, one could say that with the rise of political correctness, they might change this. So far, they're getting further from the truth instead. So the ancient Egyptians, who kept black slaves, supposedly were black, and apparently they invented calculus or at least analytic geometry.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: sams on March 27, 2010, 09:45:29 am
Say that Lincoln was a dictator or that the South was Constitutionally correct about secession, and see how much "tolerance" you get.
Even if those statements are correct, they are irrelevant. The South was guilty of the initiation of force on a massive scale against its dark-skinned residents. Admittedly, government schools do get this history wrong; somehow, they try to teach that Lincoln was morally superior to John Brown.

Of course, one could say that with the rise of political correctness, they might change this. So far, they're getting further from the truth instead. So the ancient Egyptians, who kept black slaves, supposedly were black, and apparently they invented calculus or at least analytic geometry.

I don't think that Sandy point is that the south was innocent or that slavery was justifiable, the truth is seems to be that they were constitutionally correct to secede from the Union, even if we concede that it is from the wrong reasons. Secondly it seems to me that Lincoln actually didn't fought the war over the slaves nor that the Confederates fough to guard the slaves ... at least not has a prime reason.

It was mainly a fight over sovereignty and confederates died to assert they right to secede from the Union, has the Colonist asserted they rights to secede from the British empire.

It looks like all the this talk that Lincoln jumped in war that costed at least half million american looks like fairy tale to me, it was about power and about sealing denying the south the right to say no to the Federal government ... I know ... you will probably jump and call me racist but you better be prepared to call Walter Williams Redneck racist too  ;D

The bottom line is that this wasn't that of a clear cut ''racist Confederate vs enlighten Yankees'' it was a little bit more grey than that ... and the abolition of slavery just happen to be the easiest way to justify the slaughter

But yes government schools have a lot of bulcrap instead of history and cultivate the myth that the current generation are the direct descendant of civilizations that go back till the antiquity ... BS

History has become of weapon to justify the Idiocy of the present ... and give a something to brag about to the pawns that happen to be the tax payers.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 27, 2010, 07:40:30 pm
You won't find me defending slavery, and the same is true of any other libertarian; but Lincoln himself said that the Union was more important than the issue of slavery; he'd fight to preserve the Union with or without slavery. Before you get all one-sided about the South initiating force against black people, bear in mind a few salient points. The northern states had slavery too; they also created the whole category of Jim Crow laws. Finally, the real issue of the War of Northern Aggression was about imposing force on everyone in America, forcing them to pay tariffs in order to give a competitive advantage to Northern manufacturers, and to fund railways and other corporate-welfare programs. The GOP was very explicit about using tax dollars to fund so-called "internal improvements", and their patrons were the so-called Robber Barons, who used tax funds to support immense amounts of corruption.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on March 28, 2010, 03:03:57 pm
If some ignorant madman is hell-bent on the destruction of an AnCap society, what do you expect the response will be?

Total, absolute, devastating force, right where it matters - delivered by powerful, wealthy, inventive, resourceful people.

If you expect anything less than that, you are a prime candidate for a Darwin Award.

That's it on "da money", Terry.  If GWB had a lick of sense (right, like his parents ever had any), the proper response to the destruction of the WTC would have been to go over to Jersey City, find a couple of guys, say "Here's twenty grand -- bring me this guy Bin Laden's head, you get forty more).  (Similar applied to any "leader" anywhere, like Gaddafy (that's how it was spelled when I was 18), Kim Jong Il, and other US government tools like Saddam Hussein.  Of course, the dollar was worth more back then.  Apparently, American and other human lives weren't and aren't.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: quadibloc on March 28, 2010, 06:52:58 pm
You won't find me defending slavery, and the same is true of any other libertarian; but Lincoln himself said that the Union was more important than the issue of slavery; he'd fight to preserve the Union with or without slavery.
I don't accuse anyone of defending slavery for just that reason. I can't fault Lincoln's intent to preserve the Union, as America then was surrounded by other rapacious states: what measure of freedom it had would soon evaporate if it was weak.

If GWB had a lick of sense (right, like his parents ever had any), the proper response to the destruction of the WTC would have been to go over to Jersey City, find a couple of guys, say "Here's twenty grand -- bring me this guy Bin Laden's head, you get forty more).  (Similar applied to any "leader" anywhere, like Gaddafy (that's how it was spelled when I was 18), Kim Jong Il, and other US government tools like Saddam Hussein.
If youse did find a coupl'a guys like dat in Joisey, in da case of Kim Jong Il, fer instance, dey'd tell you they wanted two hundred thou up front just for expenses. And a million for the job. Because dey don't know da toif, just for starters.

Except they don't have a hit man who does this kind of work. They don't need that level of talent. If they were feeling helpful, they might advise you to try Langley, Virginia rather than Jersey City to find the kind of talent you were looking for.

I do think that the survival of free people without government does raise many questions - to which answers have been proposed, but those answers haven't been tested by experience. One can claim that replacing civic government by having everyone who wants a livable space move into a gated community won't create a dictatorship of the landlords, one can claim that a volunteer citizen militia can hold off a nuclear-armed superpower that does not want the example of a free society to make its slaves restive, but claims aren't proof, and when the stakes are this high, fear of the unknown is pardonable.

But let's take one issue. A car is going down the street. Carbon monoxide is coming out of its exhaust - but rather less nitrous oxide than might be expected is doing so, because it has a government-mandated catalytic converter.

At least one of these two things, the state-imposed requirement of a catalytic converter, or being allowed to legally put carbon monoxide into other people's air, when putting arsenic in their tea would be attempted murder, is not consistent with a Libertarian society. (I don't think all Libertarians are even agreed on which.)

Here's a suggestion: given that America began as a society in which government was limited to a much greater extent than it is now, even though it was not fully Libertarian, what if instead of doing everything overnight, a very modest reform were made in the beginning?

Government regulations, taxes, conscription, allowing vital industries to pollute the air and water... don't stop doing any of them, just change the laws so that henceforth they are all specifically authorized by "emergency" legislation. Which spells out limits to what can be so authorized, and requires deviations from Libertarian principles to be justified.

A very small first step, but this way people will be able to see what would be changed once it is decided the "emergency" is over, or a free-enterprise way of achieving the needed goals is attained.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on March 28, 2010, 07:33:03 pm
I don't accuse anyone of defending slavery for just that reason. I can't fault Lincoln's intent to preserve the Union, as America then was surrounded by other rapacious states: what measure of freedom it had would soon evaporate if it was weak.
Name one.  Britain and Spain were having enough trouble holding their own empires "together" at the time.
Quote
If GWB had a lick of sense (right, like his parents ever had any), the proper response to the destruction of the WTC would have been to go over to Jersey City, find a couple of guys, say "Here's twenty grand -- bring me this guy Bin Laden's head, you get forty more).  (Similar applied to any "leader" anywhere, like Gaddafy (that's how it was spelled when I was 18), Kim Jong Il, and other US government tools like Saddam Hussein.
If youse did find a coupl'a guys like dat in Joisey, in da case of Kim Jong Il, fer instance, dey'd tell you they wanted two hundred thou up front just for expenses. And a million for the job. Because dey don't know da toif, just for starters.

Except they don't have a hit man who does this kind of work. They don't need that level of talent. If they were feeling helpful, they might advise you to try Langley, Virginia rather than Jersey City to find the kind of talent you were looking for.

I'm guessing you don't know the boys in Jersey City (I'm a town over) very well.  Good education (you can tell by the steel ruler scars on their hands), they know geography and they keep up with the news.  I'm sort of distantly related to some of them by marriage (La Esposa's father was half Lithuanian and half Gambino family).

The economy is in the toilet.  Dem guys could do simple jobs that would save a lot of lives and tax dollars.  You don't care if US soldiers live or die, why would you care if mafia soldiers live or die?
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Sean Roach on March 28, 2010, 07:58:25 pm
A very small first step, but this way people will be able to see what would be changed once it is decided the "emergency" is over, or a free-enterprise way of achieving the needed goals is attained.
So...how do you determine when the emergency is spent?  We've had a war on drugs for how long?  I think we have a few other wars declared against substances or conditions too.  Kind of hard to assassinate the leader of poverty.  Same with illiteracy.

When's this wartime imposed income tax going to end, anyway?
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: quadibloc on March 28, 2010, 10:34:17 pm
The economy is in the toilet.  Dem guys could do simple jobs that would save a lot of lives and tax dollars.  You don't care if US soldiers live or die, why would you care if mafia soldiers live or die?
It's not what I care. They care about their own lives, and trying to sneak into North Korea to assassinate Kim Jong-Il is not your garden variety hit. Yes, they can find North Korea on a map, but even studying the place on Google Earth isn't going to give you quite enough information to pull that kind of a job off. If they did take the contract, you would still be wasting your money (except for the benefit of ridding the country of a few hitmen).
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on March 29, 2010, 12:26:13 am
The economy is in the toilet.  Dem guys could do simple jobs that would save a lot of lives and tax dollars.  You don't care if US soldiers live or die, why would you care if mafia soldiers live or die?
It's not what I care. They care about their own lives, and trying to sneak into North Korea to assassinate Kim Jong-Il is not your garden variety hit. Yes, they can find North Korea on a map, but even studying the place on Google Earth isn't going to give you quite enough information to pull that kind of a job off. If they did take the contract, you would still be wasting your money (except for the benefit of ridding the country of a few hitmen).

My child, these guys won't take the down payment if they don't think they can do the job.  In fact, some are the sons or grandsons of guys who went to Korea back about the time my late father did and my late father-in-law did (dad was 17 when he went into the Army, Joe was 40 and had previously been medically retired from the Navy due to wounds he took at Iwo Jima, which is why he was in the Air Force).

I'm against war.  It's why I'm against government, because war and taxation are the only things governments do well.  But I won't disavow the stupid decision made by Ward D. Griffiths Jr (yeah, dad was dumb as a stump, later he became an abusive alcoholic after he knocked up a WAC nurses aide at Letterman (mom got a BCD). 

Joe was something special.  He spent most of WWII in the naval Construction Battalions, building airstrips all across the Pacific.  He got attached to a Marine squad for the invasion of Iwo Jima when they wanted any warm body or fresh corpse.  After the Navy discharged him (a row of 30 cal stitches across the belly and half of one heel shot off was considered disabling), he returned to New Jersey.  New Jersey is a pretty boring place however many times you've seen the movies with Jay and Silent Bob.  So he joined the OSS and spent a couple of years in Europe getting former members of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party to make their court dates at Nuremburg.  After the OSS had a cerebrectomy and became the CIA, he joined the USAF.  While I don't have a clue why he was in that plane (every aerial photographer I knew during my time in the USAF a couple decades later stayed on the ground and waited for the film to be delivered), the plane he was in made an unscheduled landing and he spent 18 months as a guest of the PRC at a resort up in Manchuria (his petit-mal epilepsy dated from then, it's a not-uncommon after-effect of head trauma from beatings).  After the armistice and extensive debriefing by "the good guys", he spent a few years at Thule building the DEW Line segment across Greenland.  Then he retired a second and final time, came back to New Jersey and married his high school sweetheart.  A couple years later La Esposa showed up.  Forty years after that the VA managed to kill him after trying for decades.

Yeah, I got a shitload of respect for the guys that governments drag into wars under the false pretense of "patriotism" (for their courage though not their brains).  Got no respect for the governments that do it.  I had no argument with Grenada -- did you?  I had no fat in the fire in Bosnia, and i don't give a damn what religion or "race" is in charge anywhere in southwest Asia or anyplace I don't live.  (we're all human, a NAZI could crossbreed with a bush pygmy if she consented, if not he'd be a pincushion from poisoned darts within seconds and a warning to others with rape on their minds).  (You can't get good sex with a gun unless that's what turns her on, aside from necrophilia, which is a fairly rare fetish, actually).
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on March 29, 2010, 03:26:40 pm
I am just now recovering from a ROTFLMAO episode regarding your touching faith in the great care taken by governments and their agents to safeguard the value of the dollar by printing so few of them.

Tell you what, I'm feeling charitable. Tell me how many ounces of gold you have, and I will swap you $20.67 ( the price at the time that FDR was elected ) for each and every ounce. We'll arrange for an escrow account and an assayist, and you can carefully examine my Federal Reserve Notes and assure yourself of their total authenticity.

How can you turn down such a great deal, given the probity and integrity of the Federal Reserve, and the dedication with which they have prevented the devaluation of the dollar, all these long years?

You say gold used to be cheap. In "dollars", it was a lower price - but a single ounce in those days could buy a really nice mens' suit. It still can. Try and find a good mens' suit for $20 nowadays, even Goodwill charges more than that for their retreads. My parents, back in the day, could see a movie for a nickel, two for a dime. Of course, dimes were made with 90% silver; the government stopped issuing silver dimes and quarters in 1964.


Title: The current bounty on OBL is:
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 30, 2010, 12:05:04 am
$25 Million dollars.

Has been since a little after 9/11. That worked real well, didn't it?

Of course, finding one person in a hostile country filled with warring tribes is sort of difficult for anyone, even a hitman from Joisey, to do. Even if you do find him, what good does it do to kill one guy? You need to stop his organization and support network. Afghanistan, with its opium poppies, rugged mountain terrain and friendly Taliban forces, was ideal. We needed to deny him that safe haven, and we did so, but it took a lot more work than calling up Jimmy da Tulip and ordering a horse's head placed in IBL's bed.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: one eye chuck on March 30, 2010, 08:18:38 am
Hey folks,
   Just a quick aside (and this thread has gotten pretty far afield already) I got out on Baby over the weekend! Baby is my '92 F'n Loud Heavy Touring Couch. I can't wait 'til I can bring her home - no garage here and she don't like snow and/or salt.
   Back to the topics at hand. sams, you say that Christian kids should learn that homosexuality is a sin and that they should be vocal about their feelings on it. Do you feel the same way about Muslim kids being taught that infidels should not be tolerated? This is not a red herring. You are giving equal weight to Christian values and educational goals. ( Personally, I am an agnostic/atheist = at best, we can never know whether or not there is a God and I lean toward there not being one: see Epicurus)
   Mafia hit squads for foreign policy? It would be a hell of a lot more efficient!  Gotta go. More interviews today, wish me luck!
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: dough560 on April 05, 2010, 03:12:09 am
The touring couch sounds like fun.  Good luck with the search.

The U.S. has a policy of not taking out heads of state. Unfortunately we also destroyed a lot of our human intelligence resources over the 20 years, instead relying on signal and photographic intelligence processes.  Maybe someday we'll get lucky.  Or at least find his grave.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: sams on April 05, 2010, 05:44:39 am
   Back to the topics at hand. sams, you say that Christian kids should learn that homosexuality is a sin and that they should be vocal about their feelings on it. Do you feel the same way about Muslim kids being taught that infidels should not be tolerated? This is not a red herring. You are giving equal weight to Christian values and educational goals. ( Personally, I am an agnostic/atheist = at best, we can never know whether or not there is a God and I lean toward there not being one: see Epicurus)

Firstly: my policy in terms of education and free speech is the following : Get the idiots talk and ventilate their idiocy (idiocy is completely subjective, which mean that each one can be see has an idiot by everyone ... )
Don't matter how hideous and despicable are peoples opinions, the best it to let them express it freely, so there is a chance of them getting shammed and correct (I'm talking in totally empirical point of view : ie I'm not asserting what is right of wrong)

So yes Christians should be free to teach their kids whatever they want and whenever they want : at home, school or Sunday School

Secondly : Pointing to a sin, wrong doing or giving one self moral stand point is not equal to discrimination ;)

Jesus himself during his time went to house of notorious Sinners and despicable individuals, ate with them and didn't refrain of talking to them about their sins ... Jesus have come near to a prostitute
If you read the story of the prostitute : Jesus says in hear face, after saving her live from the Pharisees : Go and Sin no more
Does this moral judgement equal discrimination ? no. Sure Christianity is a very large umbrella and there are some zeelots and some who take distorted Biblical interpretation ... but their opinions don't hurt my pocket, my faith or my life

The same standard I apply to the muslim, hindu and everyone else ... you can have your feelings and and all BUT :

Whoever jump the verbal and mental realm and start hurting and killing people, shall get a lead bullet in his head, Period

PS :

A second case of moral judgement is Marijuana/drugs in general :

I don't like marijuana and I think that smoking it is wrong, shouldn't I teach this principle to my children ?
But see that the fact that I don't like Pot doesn't mean that I go around putting folks in jail, since stoping to smoke is their own and personal decision : No one stop to sin because an human had him locked in jail, but because he make a personnal decision

The principle can also be taken backwards : The fact that I'm for Pot decriminalization doesn't mean that I smoke or favor pot consumption

   Mafia hit squads for foreign policy? It would be a hell of a lot more efficient!  Gotta go. More interviews today, wish me luck!

   Mafia hit squads for foreign policy? It would be a hell of a lot more efficient
Sounds like a reasonable idea

 Gotta go. More interviews today, wish me luck!

Good luck
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on April 05, 2010, 08:30:02 am
The U.S. has a policy of not taking out heads of state.

Tell that to Omar Torijos of Panama. He and 2-3 other Latin American leaders of that era, died when the airplanes in which they were riding "mysteriously" exploded in midair. Coincidence? I don't think so. CIA black op? The smart money says, yes. A really eye-opening book you might want to read on the subject is, /Confessions of an Economic Hit Man/, by John Perkins.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: dough560 on April 06, 2010, 01:57:10 am
Sorry Sandy, I should have said, "Official Policy".   ;)  Direct elimination is cheaper and less likely to involve bystanders.   :)  Thanks for the book suggestion.

The aggressor countries' leadership should be a legitimate war time target.

I forget who besides me, made the point MPs are extensively trained and good at breaking things or monkey wrenching other peoples plans.  Sounded like the person who responded to my post had dealt with MPs in the past.  MPs will throw the "Book" out the window or through the wall depending on circumstances.  As a class, they are free thinkers, who believe in getting the job done. 

Just like a libertarian society.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Illuminaughty on April 18, 2010, 09:10:27 pm
I just discovered this comic today, but I'm kind of excited to read it because this forum suggests that it is kind of anarchist.

I'm sorry if this is response has already been said, I didn't read the whole thread.

But in response to AnonymousOne's post that started this thread.

How do AnCap's survive given that more coercive states around them could blast them into a crater?

This is a sci-fi comic. How do states survive given that one person with an asteroid mining ship can drag a rock into an intercept orbit and destroy the entire Earth's ability to support life? One asteroid, in a sky full of thousands of rocks, hitting the Earth - that is an extinction level event, and is likely not to be caught until it is too late.

The most successful attack on America's military command center was staged by a handful of guys who stole airplanes. What do you think people are going to do with space ships?

How long do you think we have before a pharmaceutical lab capable of cranking out virulent bio-weapons is small enough to fit in someone's garage? A decade? Two decades? How does government coercion continue to survive if one man can gather the resources necessary to wipe out a city, if a WMD can fit in your pocket?

I'm kind of excited to get started on some sci-fi that's not space marines saying stuff like, "Let's nuke it from orbit." If you dropped a VWBug-sized chunk of iron on it from orbit, it would hit the ground with such force that attaching a nuke would be wasting the nuke.

In the near future, our ordinary transportation, engineering, and medical technologies will be capable of such horrifying destruction that we will have no choice but to start giving each other respect, generosity and the freedom to live in any non-harmful way we want to live. To do otherwise would be to risk utter annihilation.

BTW, if this were a fantasy comic, with peasants and what not, and each individual was relatively powerless to destroy or even disrupt society, your critique of anarchy would be very sound. But in a sci-fi setting where I do not need anyone else's permission or even support to get in my space ship and destroy the Earth, anarchy is the only sustainable option.

Again, I'm sorry if I'm being redundant because someone already said this, and I'm sorry if my ideas are antithetical to the comic. I'm just starting to read it now.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: SandySandfort on April 18, 2010, 09:27:24 pm
I just discovered this comic today, but I'm kind of excited to read it because this forum suggests that it is kind of anarchist.

Kind of?  ::)

However, it is an anarchist society that takes the ZAP (zero aggression principle) very seriously, so there is not much chance of an extinction-level event coming from the Belt.

Welcome aboard, BTW.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on April 18, 2010, 11:53:08 pm
Welcome, Illuminaughty.  (I love your logname, wish I'd thought of it myself, the trilogy by Shea and Wilson was my first hint at anarchism).

Like Sandy said, belters would not be inclined to do an extinction-level strike at Terra.  No profit in it, and mass killing really messes up your karma.  Most of the best music will still be made there until the population of the asteroids reaches numbers to afford such luxuries.  And a rock headed for Earth impact big enough to do damage is more profitable if the trajectory is turned into an orbit where it can be mined.

Hokay, if you've read everything by the kids here, RAH and L. Neil Smith, you need a reading list.  I suggest you grab the complete list of Prometheus Award (http://www.lfs.org/awards.htm) winners, the Hall-of-Fame winners, and the runners-up for both.  Then read everything else by those authors.  (That should hold you for a few months while I think up something else to keep you busy).
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Illuminaughty on April 19, 2010, 05:59:32 pm
My interest in anarchy is based on physics and biology. I'm not really into the philosophical and ethical stuff. But I have noticed that as technology increases, individual power increases, so governments have to respond to individuals that have more power, first by giving them rights, then by allowing them to pick political representatives, then...

I was just responding to the original post that started this thread that Fascism beats Anarchism because Fascism loves building a strong aggressive military and anarchism doesn't. Well that might have been true in Medieval times, but our level of technology and individual power is quickly making that not the case anymore.

Once people live in space they will be painfully aware of the fragility of life in space, and then they will look at the Earth and say, "Hey, the Earth is in space." It's like what Klaatu said back in 1951. The consequences of aggression are far too terrible to imagine. Of course they would take ZAP very seriously. All it takes is one person to react violently to aggression and the results could kill everybody.

Please point me to more anarchist sci-fi. I'd love to read more sci-fi that doesn't ask me to shut off part of my brain to enjoy it.

Belters wouldn't be inclined to strike Terra? They would be rightly horrified by it. But all it takes is one... Remember, karma is silly, and it is always cheaper to take decisive action against oppression quickly, even if it costs an asteroid. In a free society where people are adverse to using coercion on each other, the risk that there would be one, a single person who would take matters into his own hands, would be a huge deterrent to aggression.

I'm not saying I want the comic to turn into The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I'm only up to strip 50 anyway. If you say it wouldn't occur to them, that makes sense. Their existence is so frail that aggression on that level wouldn't even enter their heads. It's cool.

Off topic warning

The gun stuff is a little silly, what with bulkheads and hard vacuum right outside, and whatnot, but I suppose it fits with the wild west theme, and perhaps it's going somewhere, some point to make about the necessity or lack of necessity of gun control. (Absent government coercion, how does one prevent people from having such simple devices? People can build primitive guns all by themselves. Heck, an AK47 isn't a terribly complicated device.) But given that humans have a natural reluctance to kill each other, I think non-lethal, non-hull piercing weapons would sell better.

Check these out

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/directional-loudspeakers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon

Those two links make it look so simple I want to head out to the electronics store and see if I can get the stuff to build a sonic stunner myself.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Hardware on April 20, 2010, 07:39:53 am
Read Freehold by Williamson. He's answered most of your questions about how an AnCap society would work. But I bet you won't like his answers.

Firearms make perfect sense if you are a belter living inside a hollowed out asteroid. Your "hull" is meters thick rock and easily able to absorb the energy from a firearm. So far I believe the only defensive weapons we have seen on ships are handguns. Relatively low powered weapons. Assuming advances in metallurgy and weapons the rounds they fire may be colloidal, having properties of liquids and solids, to fully transfer their energy to the first object they encounter. Even with no advances in bullet design and composition a good ol' .45 ACP won't penetrate the hull if the shooter does her job and hits her target. The slow moving bullet with lots of frontal area rarely perforates a human.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: dough560 on April 21, 2010, 02:51:17 am
Depends on bullet construction.

A .45 Caliber Ball Round will over penetrate a human torso, let alone an arm or leg.  A bullet like the Glasser Safety Slug doesn't.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: quadibloc on May 06, 2010, 08:34:58 am
I was just responding to the original post that started this thread that Fascism beats Anarchism because Fascism loves building a strong aggressive military and anarchism doesn't. Well that might have been true in Medieval times, but our level of technology and individual power is quickly making that not the case anymore.
This raises an interesting question.

Once we get nanotechnology, how, short of a totalitarian society or a nanotech priesthood, do we prevent a gray goo catastrophe from taking place within the year because somebody's girlfriend left him?

Actually, though, there is an AnCap answer. It's a very simple one, really.

The inventor of practical nanotech makes money from it, but instead of patenting it, simply guards his trade secrets very well. As in "Such ones go very soon to the land of the Genii".

Heinlein's novel Friday had a Daddy Warbucks type character whose company provided fusion power to the world, but not fusion weapons to the governments... and, of course, this comic has Tobi.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Illuminaughty on May 06, 2010, 05:52:17 pm
That's actually a weak answer, because nothing prevents the guy who invented it from making grey goo because his girlfriend left him.

A better answer, still not perfect, is that he can't perfectly protect his secret. There is no such thing as a perfectly kept secret, and of course he can't stop others from hitting on the invention as well. So people will see how the grey goo is built, and build their own protections.

Grey goo would be super advanced nanotech though. A creation that could metabolize anything? That's crazy. By that point physical reality would be just as malleable as digital reality, people would download nano-protection updates to their immune systems. I'm not sure you could even call it a capitalist anarchy when people could surround themselves with clouds of builders that can make diamonds out of sugar. Maybe by that point people wouldn't have money, but just sort of abstract units of the approval of those around you, like wuffie in Corey Doctorow's story, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: quadibloc on May 06, 2010, 08:21:46 pm
That's actually a weak answer, because nothing prevents the guy who invented it from making grey goo because his girlfriend left him.
But that's only one chance of that happening. As opposed to a virtual certainty when an unrestricted nanotech engine is basically something as common as a gallon of gasoline.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on May 07, 2010, 01:48:51 am
Regarding nanotech, let me ask a question which is slightly less hypothetical. There are roughly 70 million Americans who own guns and lots of ammo. With the exception of those directly employed by the government, these 70 million Americans kill hardly anybody, all things considered. Probably 99% of private gun owners ( as opposed to those hired by the government ) can say that they have never, in all their lives, killed a human being. Yet, they have awesome firepower at their disposal.

Gee, think. If I were to begin a shooting spree, I could probably knock off 30, 60, maybe even a hundred people before somebody took me down.

Why don't we have streets running with blood, as the hoplophobes assert must be the inevitable consequence of mixing people with guns?

When you have the answer to that question, we can proceed to something more hypothetical, such as grey goo.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: wdg3rd on May 07, 2010, 04:50:15 am
I was just

Heinlein's novel Friday had a Daddy Warbucks type character whose company provided fusion power to the world, but not fusion weapons to the governments... and, of course, this comic has Tobi.


While the Shipstone Complex owned a number of fusion power plants (as well as solar power collection systems both on and off Earth and other power generation facilities), the devices known as "Shipstones" were energy storage units, not generators.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Illuminaughty on May 07, 2010, 08:27:48 am
That's a very good point Terry,

But I think Quadibloc's point is that if 70 million people owned nanotech that could metabolize anything, and only 0.1% of them decide to use it, that's still a society containing 70 thousand people who own and intend to use doomsday devices.

The society we have today could not allow people access to this technology. If we invented this technology today, we'd be screwed.

But...

If people grew up knowing that they had access to doomsday devices, and they grew up in a free and generous society, without constant exposure to the threat of violent aggressive government coercion, if they never had to harm another human being for the necessities of their existence, those people might take ZAP seriously enough so that they could have such advanced nanotech and not destroy themselves.

They would also be a lot more compassionate than us. They wouldn't ignore the Virginia tech shooting guy, even though he was obviously mentally distressed enough to unleash a doomsday device if he had one. They would help that guy, because ignoring him means massive destruction.

Giving one of us grey goo would be like giving Attila the Hun a hummer and telling him not to run over people. Yeah right, that's gonna happen.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: MacFall on May 07, 2010, 11:47:28 am
I'm not quite as cynical as you appear to be, but I think that if we want to avoid grey goo and nuclear winter and Skynet, we've got to replace coercion as the basic assumption underlying civil organization with mutual respect and cooperation. And with it, we would eliminate its chief wielder: centralized "authority". On a personal, individual basis, I would frankly trust my neighbor with a nuclear weapon. But so long as the state exists, each new technology is a threat to my life and liberty.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: quadibloc on May 07, 2010, 08:10:46 pm
Why don't we have streets running with blood, as the hoplophobes assert must be the inevitable consequence of mixing people with guns?

When you have the answer to that question, we can proceed to something more hypothetical, such as grey goo.
You can't kill that many people with a gun before you're stopped. And shooting sprees do happen occasionally.

Why do we have all those security precautions in airports, when passengers would react differently now to an attempted hijacking? Because if there are enough copycat attacks by people who are merely suicidal, one will eventually get through.

So if it becomes too easy to whip up something which could kill millions before it is stopped, a few individuals would be crazy enough to do so, it would seem.

They would also be a lot more compassionate than us. They wouldn't ignore the Virginia tech shooting guy, even though he was obviously mentally distressed enough to unleash a doomsday device if he had one. They would help that guy, because ignoring him means massive destruction.
This is interesting. If such technology only comes about in a distant future, yes, I could see people gradually becoming more civilized.

But this also suggests a more disturbing possibility.

Let us say we're not quite in the stage of fearing grey goo, but ordinary individuals do happen to have a fair amount of destructive power at their command. It could be that one category of person is more likely to endanger the society in violent bursts of rage than another, and if persons of that category aren't an outcast group, but one central to the society, then they might be especially accommodated.

In other words, since the commonest cause of a man going postal is a woman leaving him, one could see a reversion to the inequality of women.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Illuminaughty on May 07, 2010, 10:03:06 pm
Quote
Let us say we're not quite in the stage of fearing grey goo, but ordinary individuals do happen to have a fair amount of destructive power at their command.

OMG! there should be a dozen, maybe two dozen twilight zone episodes about this.

In one, a small group of people, people like you and your friends, so like cool people, not violent or aggressive oppressors, right, learn unequivocally that they exist as subroutines on a computer simulating the world, not like the Matrix, no physical bodies somewhere. We are all information. And they learn a series of syllables that doesn't exist in any Earth language that would end the simulation and wipe the hard drive, essentially killing the whole world. How would that change you? How many people could learn the secret before the unthinkable happens? How would you prevent the secret from getting out? If it did get out, how would people's lives have to change, to avoid disaster?

There could even be the love angle you keep coming back to, with the couple breaking up after they learn the self destruct code, and the guy all like, "I can't live without you. I'm going to end everything." And he starts saying it. What would she do, faced with the imminent destruction of the world? That would be an awesome scene.

Maybe we should start a new thread about ideas for stories in which people are faced with the technological necessity of anarchy (government coercion becomes impossible because individual people have WMDs), but they are not yet civilized enough to handle it.

Escape from Terra is kind of like such a story, in that we are shown a space ship that can go from Terra to Ceres in 10 days. (It's engines would pack more of a punch than tactical nukes to be able to get such a large ship to go that fast.) But in EFT we are shown the anarchist society fully formed, the people, decent and civilized. But your comments make me want to see the growing pains.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Sean Roach on May 07, 2010, 11:35:27 pm
I have a weapon.  It's a couple tons of Detroit Steel.
It is a potent weapon.
I am not alone in having this highly destructive device, and yet incidents involving people deliberately running down pedestrians are relatively rare.
Of course, it could be that very few people actually stop to think about the potential destruction locked up inside that vehicle, and this is unfortunately at least in part true.  Very few people actually stop to think.  I hold that most motorists aren't homicidal.

Remember the scene in TPB where Lucille Kropotkin comments about using "planet movers" as weapons.

...
Of course, I'm not sure how true THIS is.  In an an-cap society, where people are encouraged to think, or at least not discouraged from thinking.  Where people are encouraged to be more inventive.  I suspect more people would be aware of the...potential... in just about anything, including destructive potential.  Of course, growing up to be a free thinker would probably go hand-in-hand with not being a malcontent bent on the death of others.  I can't point to any evidence of this, unfortunately.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on May 08, 2010, 01:06:30 pm
The folks who work for TSA are not there to provide security; they have in fact failed many times; tests have shown that the TSA are seldom able to detect weapons. The shoe bomber and the crotch bomber got through TSA's screening. The TSA exists to provide sinecures for people who could not find honest work in a free market.

A better way to handle airport security would be for the government to remove themselves - self-immolation would be acceptable, if environmentally nasty - perhaps sepukku would be a bit less messy - and let airline crews and passengers develop ways to solve the problem. This would save approximately $6 billion per year, plus the cost of hundreds of thousands of nail clippers, bottles of water, and other items deemed to be dangerous by the TSA.

Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Rocketman on May 10, 2010, 10:34:45 am
The folks who work for TSA are not there to provide security; they have in fact failed many times; tests have shown that the TSA are seldom able to detect weapons. The shoe bomber and the crotch bomber got through TSA's screening. The TSA exists to provide sinecures for people who could not find honest work in a free market.
Indeed.  Of the TWO attempts that we know of BOTH TIMES the TSA failed to detect the explosives.  In engineering circles that's called a 100% failure rate.  How do we know that they're have only been two attempts to take down the planes?  We don't.  But doesn't it make sense to everyone that if the TSA had actually found a bomb before the airplane was boarded that they would be announcing it all over the place as a example of the "good" job that they were doing and that they weren't a waste of time and money?
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Sean Roach on May 10, 2010, 11:01:59 am
Actually, no.

Granted, "Security through Obscurity" is flawed, but it is still a component in many systems.

When something quietly fails, it gives less information to the actor to revise his approach.  A black box is harder to analyze than an open system.  It's also harder to identify any holes that may already be known to, or correctly assumed by, a limited population.

If something fails, and the opponents spell out what they did to thwart it, and how they knew, the next actor will take that information into account.  Use heat-seal plastic on the former water bottles to make them look unopened for instance, (or drill the bottom at the sprue, and drain and refill them that way, then use a little extra virgin plastic of the same type, and a soldering iron, to patch the bottle.)  Incidentally, you can no longer take even unopened water bottles into the secure area of an airport.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Rocketman on May 13, 2010, 10:52:41 am
Actually, no.

Granted, "Security through Obscurity" is flawed, but it is still a component in many systems.

When something quietly fails, it gives less information to the actor to revise his approach.  A black box is harder to analyze than an open system.  It's also harder to identify any holes that may already be known to, or correctly assumed by, a limited population.

If something fails, and the opponents spell out what they did to thwart it, and how they knew, the next actor will take that information into account.  Use heat-seal plastic on the former water bottles to make them look unopened for instance, (or drill the bottom at the sprue, and drain and refill them that way, then use a little extra virgin plastic of the same type, and a soldering iron, to patch the bottle.)  Incidentally, you can no longer take even unopened water bottles into the secure area of an airport.
Sean, while you do have a point I think that your wrong. The TSA is and has been roundly criticized in the past for their unprofessional behavior.  The only reason that they haven't been abolished  I think is because the government believes that they are neccessary. (that's a whole nother story)  I think that the need for them to show that they are worth the aggravation that they are causing the FAA and the passengers on the airplanes out weighs the need for secrecy, besides if they believe that some details of the capture would aid the terrorists it would be easy for them to leave them out of the press briefing.
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: terry_freeman on May 13, 2010, 01:26:08 pm
I don't think even the government is stupid enough to believe that the TSA is necessary; the reason the TSA persists is that the government hates to admit to being wrong.

If the government ever admitted that peace can be privatized ( to borrow a line from Iron Man 2 ), then why should we consent to being taxed to support violence, mayhem, mugging, theft, bombing, poverty, kidnapping, propaganda, and other government "services?"
Title: Re: My problem with Anarchy...
Post by: Rocketman on May 14, 2010, 09:13:20 am
Terry: The TSA is a government entity, therefore of course they are going to keep supporting if because it gives greater power to the govenment, also in the strictest sense we don't consent to having the government take our money in taxes  No one asked me and I doubt if they asked you.  The reason that I give the government money is because I don't like spending the next five to ten years in jail.  If I actually had an option my money wouldn't be used to pay the bailout of a bunch of fat cat bankers who make insane loans that they knew from the very beginning would never ever be able to be paid back.  >:(