- well, other than the fact that I can only create a new poll, not a new topic, but okay.

Sure
Why not?
KBCraig on June 04, 2010, 02:59:49 am
TRUE anarchy, has historically unraveled into a tyranny where the Biggest gun, club, etc. makes the "laws."

Ceres works because it was founded as a TRUE democracy. The populace as a whole voted on the ground rules, approved them and then went their merry way. ("If you don't like it, you can leave" is one of those rules.)

I believe you have your terms reversed. "TRUE democracy" consists of, "If you don't like  it, tough. The majority have decided for you." It's the very essence of those with the biggest gun, club, etc., making the laws.


sams on June 04, 2010, 08:17:11 am
True democracy is essentially MOB RULE, being that the greater coalition possible will get you do what they want.

Anarchy would require to work an armed population, economically active in a vibrant free market. But most important you need people of virtue and you can only get them if the population is self selected, those who want get in or get out at will ... so those who can't keep up will get out instead of trying to parasitazing others

Rocketman on June 04, 2010, 10:38:04 am
Just figured out my own question.  Ignore this post.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 10:45:44 am by Rocketman »

Montecristo on June 07, 2010, 11:34:53 am
For example*: a woman is dying from hunger. A man offers her food in exchange for sex. She agrees, in effect agreeing to a contract exchange - food for sex. She eats the food, but then refuses to have sex with the man. The man then attempts to rape her.

The question is, under the Ceres system, has the man done anything wrong? In a purely contractual sense, the man could argue that he was merely trying to take what he'd been promised -- which doesn't change that something horrible and morally repugnant just took place. So why wouldn't a Norman feel just as much at home on Ceres as he would on Terra?

The short answer: rape isn't sex.  If you have to take it, it isn't sex, which is the object of the contract.  The woman may be liable for the price of the meal, but typically, Occidental jurrisprudential tradition has shied away from coerced performance on contracts and favored reimbursement, possibly with damages.

tinwatchman on June 07, 2010, 03:32:40 pm
The concept of the state is deeply imbued in all of us. For that reason, most of us try to recast anarchy into some sort of "system." It isn't. So first of all, there is no "Ceres system" to be under.

All right. The Ceres "culture," or "ecosystem," or "ethos." You know what I mean.

So the real question is, what would individuals do in this situation?

Okay. Albeit individuals operating under certain shared cultural principles or ideals, correct?

The woman has breached her contract. So what are some of the man's possible remedies?

Just to be clear here - you are certain that the woman is in the wrong in the described situation?

That is, he can just break into her house and "steal" enough money and property to repay the money he gave her. This is the initiation of force as would be rape, however. So she could then do all of the above to him.

Let's presume scarcity in this situation - in other words, that if the woman had property or other assets to trade for food, she would have done so.

He and she may do anything they want. The question is one of consequences.

Hm. As you say further below, isn't that essentially the case in a statist system, practically speaking? With the possible exception that a state can impose much harsher and much more definite consequences.

If she shot him dead during the rape attempt, I doubt many people would be inclined to do much about it, though they might shun her for precipitating the unnecessary death by not honoring her contract. In which case, they might award his relatives a big settlement in arbitration. (Think. Fred Goldman and O.J. Simpson.)

And if she has no property to pay said settlement? What then?

sams on June 07, 2010, 05:20:18 pm
The concept of the state is deeply imbued in all of us. For that reason, most of us try to recast anarchy into some sort of "system." It isn't. So first of all, there is no "Ceres system" to be under.

All right. The Ceres "culture," or "ecosystem," or "ethos." You know what I mean.

So the real question is, what would individuals do in this situation?

Okay. Albeit individuals operating under certain shared cultural principles or ideals, correct?

The woman has breached her contract. So what are some of the man's possible remedies?

Just to be clear here - you are certain that the woman is in the wrong in the described situation?

That is, he can just break into her house and "steal" enough money and property to repay the money he gave her. This is the initiation of force as would be rape, however. So she could then do all of the above to him.

Let's presume scarcity in this situation - in other words, that if the woman had property or other assets to trade for food, she would have done so.

He and she may do anything they want. The question is one of consequences.

Hm. As you say further below, isn't that essentially the case in a statist system, practically speaking? With the possible exception that a state can impose much harsher and much more definite consequences.

If she shot him dead during the rape attempt, I doubt many people would be inclined to do much about it, though they might shun her for precipitating the unnecessary death by not honoring her contract. In which case, they might award his relatives a big settlement in arbitration. (Think. Fred Goldman and O.J. Simpson.)

And if she has no property to pay said settlement? What then?

You are going in all circular non ending fallacious reasoning and sin at the basic : You don't postulate a problem twisted at your prefered answer and then make it more difficult as you go .... you might ''win'' the argument but only for the useless satisfaction of egocentric sentiments.

For your problem there are some important legal commonly accepted legal principle, which I believe are a necessary cultural and legal basis for anarchy : contract, proportionality and remedy.

1 - The fact is that the woman and the men had a contract, circumstance surrounding it are irrelevant ... all the merry talk about ''she had no property'' is irrelevant, the only question is wether she was in full possesion of her mental capacities and free of cohercion to make the decision.

2 - The is a common sense principle that punishment is proportional to the wrong doing, beating your kid into blood over a bean of rice is stupid has trying to kill someone over a 5 cent banknote. But in any case there is the presumption of sanctity of life and the man would be a murderer.

3 - The remedy in the case the woman refuse to get laid can't be a rape, since 2 wrong don't make right, most likely is restitution, and despite all your ''she has only sex and nothing else'', I'm pretty sure that maximun a working week in a bussines, with part of the wage given to the victim, is fairly more than enough. if she is a high end prostitute than sleeping with two more idiots is even quicker.

The question of rule of law in an anarchist commonwealth is important, and it can indeed exist,in the form of common law and decentralized voluntarized courts. this would require a minimun virtue of the population, who should have a minimun acceptance of common sense concept of murders, robery and contractual engagement. enforcement would be likely be done by interested members of society, friends, family or previously agreed parties.

You asked somewhere to sandy ''how do you know that the woman is wrong'' ... you almost seem to presupose that either the ''state is omniscient'' or that act are commited outside a phisical world ... so let me break it down to you : People, government or otherwise, investigate and after having common sense wise determined a ''reasonable'' acceptable set of proofs, might reach the conclusion that wrong doing was done or not

SandySandfort on June 07, 2010, 05:56:50 pm
Okay. Albeit individuals operating under certain shared cultural principles or ideals, correct?

Literally, no. If the cultural principles or ideals were shared, there would be no crime. There are principle and ideals that a lot of people agree to (more or less), but that is not the same thing.

Here is an example of what really happens now and forever. Penn & Teller did a fake street survey in Washington, DC. They were passing around a petition that proposed that a law be passed saying protesters should not be allowed to protest within 300 feet of the capital building. Now, just about everyone says they believe in free speech. And the 1st Amendment and its case law could not be clearer. Yet lots of Americans signed the petition. because protesting in DC at government buildings is disrespectful to America. Others, (thank Chaos) refused to sign. Yet I am fairly confident that both sides would agree with your statement.

Just to be clear here - you are certain that the woman is in the wrong in the described situation?

Linguistically, there is a difference in the means of "in the wrong" and simply "wrong." Her wrong doing is clear. However, it is not mitigated by his subsequent wrong doing. Both parties have violated rights. If you believe what she did was not wrong, please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

Let's presume scarcity in this situation - in other words, that if the woman had property or other assets to trade for food, she would have done so.

Why presume scarcity? "Scarcity" exists in every situation. It is really irrelevant in the instant case. Being poor does not justify theft or fraud. or is that not what you are arguing with your "scarcity" allusion?

More importantly, you are assuming facts not in evidence. She clearly does have assets, that is property in her own body. That is the asset the man was offering to rent in exchange for money. Even then, there were 3-4 other options she could have taken instead of the sexual offer.

He and she may do anything they want. The question is one of consequences.
Hm. As you say further below, isn't that essentially the case in a statist system, practically speaking? With the possible exception that a state can impose much harsher and much more definite consequences.

Possible exception? How can it not be intrinsic to State action? It is the defining sine qua non of the State. This is the crux of the problem. Freedom vs. serfdom. The government intervenes with force (including deadly force) every day in all sorts of victimless behavior or consensual relationships. They can send people to prison for having sexual intercourse with someone of their own sex, or sex for money, selling dope, or gambling.

Now if someone does not like homosexuality or dope smoking, et alia, they should not engage in those activities. However, they have no right to initiate force against others to stop them from doing these things. If you agree that individuals have no right to use force (including deadly force) to stop activities of which they disapprove, then it follows that the government has no power to do so either, since in theory, the government derives its powers from the people (unless you believe in the divine right of kings; I don't).

And if she has no property to pay said settlement? What then?

Well, we have already demonstrated that she does have property. Of course, we are not going to permit the use of force to compel specific performance. You really are stretching here with you increasingly unlikely suppositions. In any case, the man has a judgment against her for monetary damages. If she ever has any assets, then she will have to make good on her debt. If not, and she dies pennyless, the man is S.O.L. That's life. Sometimes you get cheated and there is nothing you can do about it. Welcome to Life.

Brugle on June 07, 2010, 07:01:08 pm
And if she has no property to pay said settlement? What then?
EFT is in the midst of a similar situation.  Robyn took food but couldn't pay.  So what did Babette and Emily do?  Investigate (by getting Robyn to tell her story) and write off the loss.  We'll find out what happens next, but I expect Babette and Emily to help her get back on her feet (assuming that they believe her story) or at least direct her to someone who will help.  I'd do something like that--wouldn't you?

terry_freeman on June 08, 2010, 12:29:50 am
"Assume scarcity ..." -- in a technical sense, there is always scarcity; one can always imagine demands which are bigger than supply. If I were to win a million dollar lottery, perhaps I would want a multi-million-dollar yacht and/or a really kick-ass supercomputer. Life tends to be unfair that way.

But in a more practical sense, food and sex are easily available, especially in a genuinely free (voluntaryist) society. Hence, the hypothetical scenario is unlikely. But let us suppose a gal has escaped from a statist prison cell and needs a meal. Suppose she steals ... um, that was just covered in EFT.

Well, one method to make the gal pay, which might be attractive to any statists among us, would be rape or imprisonment. But there are other methods.

Years ago, at a sales seminar, the speaker asked "Does anyone here have a hundred dollar bill? Anyone have a really nice watch?" Within a minute, the speaker had both. The moral of the story: you only have to ask.

Lifeboat scenarios are not very useful for determining the ethics of daily life; more than 99% of our lives are spent under far less stressful conditions. We might possibly eat a fellow human being in a lifeboat situation, if absolutely nothing else would do; but outside of lifeboat situations, cannibalism would be unthinkable for the vast majority of us.


Shotgun Wedding on June 08, 2010, 08:22:52 am


One would hope that the male individual in question would have soul enough to not accept the womans offer and would attempt first to feed her, get her healthy and assist her in becoming independent. If she has a desire to accept money for sex the man in question would take a percentage of her earnings over a set period of time to recoup his investment. That's anarcho-capitalism.

Quote
The question is, under the Ceres system, has the man done anything wrong? In a purely contractual sense, the man could argue that he was merely trying to take what he'd been promised -- which doesn't change that something horrible and morally repugnant just took place. So why wouldn't a Norman feel just as much at home on Ceres as he would on Terra?

* I apologize if I offend anyone with this example. I'm posing a counter-example to the comic's storyline at the time of this writing, which is in essence about an attempted rape.
[quote\]

The difference is that Norman was threatening both Robin and the blond girl with "horrible things" if they didn't put out. If he tried that on Ceres the girls could just leave and let it be known that Norman's a dangerous pervert. All bets were off when Robin said "NO" and he threatened to have her "spaced" if she injured him. The Moon being the Harsh Mistress she is, Norman got what he deserved.

Anarchy is not government. Centuries of social canalization has left you with the deep mindset of having to be told what to do and what not to do. In an anarchy all you really need is a simple understanding of what's right or wrong. Most of us know right from wrong and the concept of what is fair or unfair at about 6 years of age. A truly free individual knows this without question.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 11:44:30 am by Shotgun Wedding »
Fightin' fer Peace is like Frakkin' fer Virginity

tinwatchman on June 08, 2010, 01:23:04 pm
Linguistically, there is a difference in the means of "in the wrong" and simply "wrong." Her wrong doing is clear. However, it is not mitigated by his subsequent wrong doing. Both parties have violated rights. If you believe what she did was not wrong, please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

Oh, I haven't. I just wanted to know what you think.

More importantly, you are assuming facts not in evidence. She clearly does have assets, that is property in her own body. That is the asset the man was offering to rent in exchange for money. Even then, there were 3-4 other options she could have taken instead of the sexual offer.

Such as?

Well, we have already demonstrated that she does have property. Of course, we are not going to permit the use of force to compel specific performance... In any case, the man has a judgment against her for monetary damages. If she ever has any assets, then she will have to make good on her debt. If not, and she dies pennyless, the man is S.O.L. That's life. Sometimes you get cheated and there is nothing you can do about it. Welcome to Life.

Okay. In an anarchist situation, who would be in charge of enforcing the payment of debts? Would it be the man himself? Would he be able to outsource this, perhaps, to some kind of collections agency?

... Also, when you say "we," I presume you mean to say that "I, as an individual, would not permit such an initiation of force in my presence."

SandySandfort on June 08, 2010, 03:41:27 pm
I am bummed out. I spent over an hour composing a post about hypothetical issues about stateless societies in general, and starving women scenarios in particular. Then, POOF, it went away while I was editing it. So all you get is the really pithy short version. I think it addresses all of your major questions.

On the Creation of Scenarios:

Before you postulate some "hard hitting" scenario to put the fear of Chaos in anarchist everywhere, you might want to heed these suggestions:

Justify your scenario. Is it realistic? Don't write, “What if we eliminated all nuclear weapons and then we were invaded by space aliens?” unless you can point to evidence such a thing is even remotely likely.

If your scenario is demolished by realistic solutions, have the good manners to accept defeat and don't come back with even more outlandish, “what ifs.”

Try to solve your own scenario yourself. What would you do to fix the “flaw” you think you have discovered without resorting to the initiation of force (i.e., government)? If you can figure out a personal solution, there is no flaw. Case closed. If you cannot come up with a solution, what makes you think others cannot either?

Starving Woman:

Solution #1: She begs. I have read that beggars in NYC can live fairly well on the income from begging alone. There are even begging schools in NYC. What would lead anyone to believe that Cerereans would be less generous than New Yorkers? Would you give a starving woman a couple of bucks? Is so, problem solved. 

Solution #2: She asks someone to lend her money or give her credit until she is on her feet. Would you take a chance on her and lend her five bucks? Is so, problem solved.

Solution #3: She makes money the old fashioned way; she earns it. Jobs are everywhere is a free society. You just have to look. Once, some friends and I were helping another friend move a ton of books (literally) out of his apartment. A “street person” approached me and asked if I could use another hand. We negotiated a price and he not only moved boxes like a machine, he became the de facto load master. As boxes of books were brought to the truck, he did an amazing job of space allocation and weight distribution. This is how the guy lived. He would walk around the neighborhoods of San Francisco looking for moving trucks. There is aways a way. If you needed some extra help with a chore, would you hire someone who was down on their luck? Is so, problem solved.

Solution #4: She shows up at a charitable organization. Today, we have the Salvation Army. They will feed anyone, no questions asked. Everyday, Saint Anthony's Dining Hall serves hundreds (thousands?) of meals to anyone who gets in line, no questions asked. Ceres has the King's Court Unfortunates Fund, and probably other private institutions that will give out food, clothing and housing to those down on their luck. (“But what if nobody on Ceres was into charity?”). Would you help the very few needy persons in a free society? Is so, problem solved.

Solution Helper: In each of the above solutions, what if the woman said, “If you cannot help me, I will have to take the money-for-sex proposition, that fat, smelly guy over there [pointing] made to me. I am afraid of disease. It's against my religion. I'm a virgin. He looks like the Green River Strangler. Etc. I would think that story would help grease the skids for the some sort of help for her.

Are we beginning to figure it out now?

Linguistically, there is a difference in the means of "in the wrong" and simply "wrong." Her wrong doing is clear. However, it is not mitigated by his subsequent wrong doing. Both parties have violated rights. If you believe what she did was not wrong, please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

Oh, I haven't. I just wanted to know what you think.

More importantly, you are assuming facts not in evidence. She clearly does have assets, that is property in her own body. That is the asset the man was offering to rent in exchange for money. Even then, there were 3-4 other options she could have taken instead of the sexual offer.

Such as?

Well, we have already demonstrated that she does have property. Of course, we are not going to permit the use of force to compel specific performance... In any case, the man has a judgment against her for monetary damages. If she ever has any assets, then she will have to make good on her debt. If not, and she dies pennyless, the man is S.O.L. That's life. Sometimes you get cheated and there is nothing you can do about it. Welcome to Life.

Okay. In an anarchist situation, who would be in charge of enforcing the payment of debts? Would it be the man himself? Would he be able to outsource this, perhaps, to some kind of collections agency?

... Also, when you say "we," I presume you mean to say that "I, as an individual, would not permit such an initiation of force in my presence."

Slamlander on June 09, 2010, 04:42:26 am
For example*: a woman is dying from hunger. A man offers her food in exchange for sex. She agrees, in effect agreeing to a contract exchange - food for sex. She eats the food, but then refuses to have sex with the man. The man then attempts to rape her.

The question is, under the Ceres system, has the man done anything wrong? In a purely contractual sense, the man could argue that he was merely trying to take what he'd been promised. So why wouldn't a Norman feel just as much at home on Ceres as he would on Terra?

First off, can we leave morality out of this? I'm a secularist and hate arbitrary rules and values imposed by theologists. They are always arbbitrary and make no sense, sort of like most theologies.

The only thing repugnant in your scenerio is the woman promising something that she knew she wasn't going to deliver. Excuse me but, that happens all the time and it is a main weakness of an anarchaic state; conflict resolution.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 04:44:04 am by Slamlander »
T H E   S L A M L A N D E R
Computer Mage: Master of C++ and Java, Creator of instances, Sunderer of Spaghetti-code, Tender of the Class Trees, Keeper of the Holy Algorithms, Wielder of the sacred heuristics, and Novelist.

terry_freeman on June 09, 2010, 09:03:09 am
Uh, what makes you think an anarchic society would not be able to resolve conflicts?

Are you seriously proposing that the statist method - hire two attorneys to duke it out under a monopolistic system of arbitrary and contradictory rules - is in any way superior to the market-based method, which might be as simple as "hire a competent arbitrator from decisions-r-us?"

Even today, many people prefer arbitration to state courts. Some people, such as the Amish and certain Jewish sects, avoid courts entirely. Document that rampaging problem of violent conflict resolution among the Amish, would you?


NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on June 09, 2010, 03:13:25 pm
Sex is not the issue here. It is the concept of  specific performance as previously mentioned. Check it out. Specific performance is rarely required in any dispute resolution system. What usually happens is the requirement of some monetary or similar compensation. 

While specific performance enforcement may be rare as a remedy in current terrestrial contract disputes, that is not an argument against them.  I contend that they are, generally, the best solution, since they avoid attempting to place an objective value on the performance which is in fact has a subjective value to the plaintiff.  In fact, one might wonder why these alternatives weren't raised by the defendant during the negotiation (perhaps they were, but were rejected by plaintiff).

I say "generally", since there are exceptions, such as bad faith on behalf of the plaintiff, or an inability of the defendant to fulfill the performance in question -- neither of which is evident here.  In fact, it appears that the defendant may have engaged in "bad faith".

There may be some points to question, such as the nature of the "sex" agreed to (a rather ambiguous term) which could perhaps lead to a "no meeting of the minds" argument, but basic contract seems valid on its face, and a specific performance resolution ideal.