Rocketman on May 13, 2010, 11:06:14 am
Brugle:  The problem with that is the government will look at the idea of a large group of people fighting their edicts as a challenge.  If they have 100 people against them they will send 700 agents to deal with them.  If the protestors have guns the agents will have TANKS.  It's not going to mean anything to them if they are in a "free zone" or not.  No law by them will ever differentiate between "free" or "not free" because to them everything that they control is considered subject to their whims and is therefore "not free".  Want an example?   >:(

sams on May 13, 2010, 11:56:35 am
Brugle:  The problem with that is the government will look at the idea of a large group of people fighting their edicts as a challenge.  If they have 100 people against them they will send 700 agents to deal with them.  If the protestors have guns the agents will have TANKS.  It's not going to mean anything to them if they are in a "free zone" or not.  No law by them will ever differentiate between "free" or "not free" because to them everything that they control is considered subject to their whims and is therefore "not free".  Want an example?   >:(

If it is succesful and involve people  ... it surely need to be regulated  ;D

We are now in world were stuff are not legal unless they are explicitly authorized ... instead of not being illegal until explicitly banned

Brugle on May 13, 2010, 12:01:10 pm
Brugle:  The problem with that is the government will look at the idea of a large group of people fighting their edicts as a challenge.  If they have 100 people against them they will send 700 agents to deal with them.  If the protestors have guns the agents will have TANKS.  It's not going to mean anything to them if they are in a "free zone" or not.  No law by them will ever differentiate between "free" or "not free" because to them everything that they control is considered subject to their whims and is therefore "not free".  Want an example?   >:(

Again you ignore context.  The discussion that the rest of us are having was started by SandySandfort describing (in reply #191) Lenin's Hammer as a relatively small commune embedded in a much larger AnCap society.  nottheowl asked (in reply #197) what the larger society would do if such a group was totalitarian in that it forbid its members from leaving.  SandySandfort answered (in reply #199) that there would be a variety of responses, and that some people would just ignore the totalitarians.  You (Rocketman) disputed that (in reply #206), saying that the government wouldn't allow people to ignore them.  I (Brugle) pointed out (in reply #207) that you ignored the context, since a small group would not have the power to enforce its will against the much larger surrounding society.

Let me give you an example.  Let's say there's an essentially-free North American Confederacy, but that the adults of Cambridge, MA unanimously decide to form a totalitarian society.  I doubt that anyone would stop them (although I expect that the rates for certain kinds of insurance would increase in nearby areas).  Then, say that those thousands of people decided to procure some tanks and conquer the half-billion people in North America (or maybe just the million people in the Boston area).  There are so many ways that their plans for conquest could be defeated that it wouldn't even make an interesting story.  However, their peaceful interaction with the surrounding communities could make an interesting story (and I hope to read Sandy's take on that some day).
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 12:03:55 pm by Brugle »

SandySandfort on May 13, 2010, 12:36:25 pm
...Lenin's Hammer as a relatively small commune embedded in a much larger AnCap society...
... their peaceful interaction with the surrounding communities could make an interesting story (and I hope to read Sandy's take on that some day).

I'm working on it. To make things more interesting, Martian society would not mess with the commune, because it is completely voluntary. Members may leave at any time and no one will stop them. Yet, the commune has existed from the very first days of the settlement of Mars and has flourished. How could that possibly be? We must be missing something here. Unfortunately, you will just have to wait to find out what, until it appears in EFT.   ;D

terry_freeman on May 13, 2010, 01:23:03 pm
People who push for government programs conflate guidance with coercion. Voluntary guidance and assistance are laudable; pointing a gun at strangers to force them to fund programs which allegedly guide and assist is not.


jamesd on May 20, 2010, 01:03:14 am
In a war between anarcho capitalist society and state, anarcho capitalism is going to developed some marked resemblances to anarcho piratism.  Yes, in a war situation property rights, and indeed all rights, are apt to get abruptly trampled, and trampled almost as much by those defending rights as those attempting to crush rights.  Against smaller threats, like a criminal gang, probably not so much.

And what is anarcho piratism?

It is what conquered the West Indies, and indeed much of Britains colonial empire, for the British.

It is often said that the Britain acquired the empire in a fit of absent mindedness.  What happened was that the British government failed to pay much attention to acts of piracy and brigandage by Britons far away, and then eventually after the pirates and brigands had stolen an empire, the British government moved in on them to take it off their hands.

Similarly, Charles the great would license brigands to rob Muslims, and this was the origin of the multitude of little Christian kingdoms that slowly reconquered Spain.

Oh ! England is a pleasant place for them that's rich and high,
But England is a cruel place for such poor folks as I ;
And such a port for mariners I'll never see again
As the pleasant Isle of Aves beside the Spanish main.

There were forty craft in Aves that were both swift and stout,
All furnished well with small arms and cannon all about ;
And a thousand men in Aves made laws so fair and free
To choose their valiant captains and obey them loyally.

Then we sailed against the Spaniard with his hoards of plate and gold,
Which he wrung with cruel tortures from Indian folks of old ;
Likewise the merchant captains, with hearts as hard as stone,
Who flog men and keelhaul them and starve them to the bone.

Oh ! palms grew high in Aves, and fruits that shone like gold,
And the colibris and parrots they were gorgeous to behold,
And the negro maids to Aves from bondage fast did flee
To welcome gallant sailors a sweeping in from sea.

Oh ! sweet it was in Aves to hear the landward breeze
A swing with good tobacco in a net between the trees,
With a negro lass to fan you while you listened to the roar
Of the breakers on the reef outside which never touched the shore.

But Scripture saith an ending to all fine things must be,
So the king's ships sailed on Aves and quite put down were we.
All day we fought like bull dogs, but they burnt the booms at night,
And I fled in a piragua sore wounded from the fight.

Nine days I floated starving, and a negro lass beside,
Till for all I tried to cheer her the poor young thing she died.
But as I lay a gasping a Bristol sail came by,
And brought me home to England here to beg until I die.

And now I'm old and going : I'm sure I can't tell where.
One comfort is, this world's so hard I can't be worse off there.
If I might but be a sea dove, I'd fly across the main
To the pleasant Isle of Aves to look at it once again.


SandySandfort on May 20, 2010, 08:50:50 am
In a war between anarcho capitalist society and state, anarcho capitalism is going to developed some marked resemblances to anarcho piratism.  Yes, in a war situation property rights, and indeed all rights, are apt to get abruptly trampled, and trampled almost as much by those defending rights as those attempting to crush rights.  Against smaller threats, like a criminal gang, probably not so much.

Your examples do not seem to support your thesis. In your examples, the pirates came first and then the state* action. Interesting, but hardly relevant to an stateless society. In a mature stateless society, pirates, tax collectors and other criminals would be dealt with swiftly and effectively. There will always be criminals, but their numbers can be kept at an absolute minimum by organized private action.

* Actually, I think a compelling argument can made that pirates represent a type of state. I.e., an organized gang that initiates force and victimizes others.

Brugle on May 20, 2010, 09:17:53 am
Whether you view piracy as pre-state, post-freedom, or something else, you may enjoy the recent book The Invisible Hook (about pirate organization) by Peter T. Leeson (an economist).

wdg3rd on May 20, 2010, 10:42:18 am

* Actually, I think a compelling argument can made that pirates represent a type of state. I.e., an organized gang that initiates force and victimizes others.


I forget who thought of it first, but El Neil has quoted several times that roving bandits (who decide to stop roving) are the very origin of government.  Started just after agriculture, when the bandits realized that they didn't have to run after farmers who couldn't run away.  They cut a deal -- "Give us half of all you produce (and any of your daughters and wives we want) this year and every year after, and we won't just kill you and take everything and have to try the same scam with the next bunch of rubes".
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

jamesd on May 20, 2010, 04:00:04 pm

Your examples do not seem to support your thesis. In your examples, the pirates came first and then the state* action. Interesting, but hardly relevant to an stateless society. In a mature stateless society, pirates, tax collectors and other criminals would be dealt with swiftly and effectively. There will always be criminals, but their numbers can be kept at an absolute minimum by organized private action.

In a mature anarcho capitalist society with no major enemies, that is not in a state of war or near war with major states or statelike enemies, doubtless.

When the British were conquering what became the British empire, they were at war with states - Spain and various sultans and rajas.  They set up systems that, though far from anarcho capitalist, were very free for insiders, and sometimes not too bad for outsiders.  These systems subsequently became centralized and authoritarian due to the British government taking over from British pirates and brigands.

Certainly British pirates and brigands were a government to those on the outside, and sometimes a brutally oppressive one, but internally they employed quite decentralized force, without running into much of the problems that decentralized force is supposed to lead to.

This differs in degree but not in kind to the Icelandic free state, which was also internally peaceful and anarchic but externally piratical - with the important difference that Icelandic relations were mainly internal and peaceful, while the relationships of the pirates that prefigured the British empire were mainly external and piratical.


KBCraig on May 24, 2010, 01:26:03 am

* Actually, I think a compelling argument can made that pirates represent a type of state. I.e., an organized gang that initiates force and victimizes others.


I forget who thought of it first, but El Neil has quoted several times that roving bandits (who decide to stop roving) are the very origin of government.  Started just after agriculture, when the bandits realized that they didn't have to run after farmers who couldn't run away.  They cut a deal -- "Give us half of all you produce (and any of your daughters and wives we want) this year and every year after, and we won't just kill you and take everything and have to try the same scam with the next bunch of rubes".


I thought that was an obvious thing: government is merely choosing to give one group of bandits a monopoly advantage over competitors.

The opposite way of expressing that idea: when a group of armed men approach you with an "offer you can't refuse", it really doesn't matter whether it's the Mafia or the government. Except with the Mafia, you might have options, including countering them with greater force, or removing the leadership without waiting for November and your neighbors' support. With the government, you really have no options except acts that are ultimately suicidal.

terry_freeman on May 24, 2010, 01:28:04 am
With the mafia, you can fight back, and people will cheer you for it. With a self-annointed "government", you'll be condemned as an "enemy of the people" if you fight back.

 

anything