MacFall on April 26, 2011, 05:53:05 am
Pray enlighten me, then.

As you clearly point out. States always end up consuming any nearby attempts at an anarchist society.

States have always done so*. That they always will is not certain - just as in the past, the fact that certain majority races had successfully violently expropriated minority races was not proof that races would never see equality under the law; and the fact that religions at one time were territorial monopolies failed to prove that religions could never (most of the time) peacefully coexist.

*It is also worth noting that it took England five hundred years to conquer pre-Cromwell Ireland (which had no state), and the Holy Roman Empire three hundred years to undermine and finally overthrow the Icelandic commonwealth - and what allowed them to do so was that what little central government the gošorš system had limited the number of competitors in the market for protection and jurisprudence, which allowed them to be bribed and threatened into submission one by one without people having the ability to switch to new gošorš to maintain their independence. And as for the people of the American frontier, they voluntarily ceded their self-governance to the state because their society had not integrated the idea suggesting they should do otherwise.

But since their inception in the late 1800s, the concepts of non-coercive governance and self-ownership have steadily grown in popularity, and the rate of their growth has increased substantially in the past few decades. It's too late for the state to quash them. And as more people have adopted those ideas, more strategies for defeating the state have emerged. Eventually, the market will defeat all political systems. The only question is how many people the state will kill in its death throes. Likely it will be a tiny fraction of the number it has killed in the pink of its health.

Quote
It's survival of the fittest and anarchy is the retarded guy with messed up legs.

Do you honestly believe that a group's ability ultimately to murder peaceful people who disagree with them (and get away with it) is proof of their ideology's superiority? If so, you are just plain psychotic, and I will have to refrain from any further discussion with you. As Alice said to the Cheshire Cat, I do not want to go among mad people.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 06:10:25 am by MacFall »
Government is not, as is often believed, a "necessary evil". Rather, it is a plain evil of such power that it has been able to convince people of its necessity.

Holt on April 26, 2011, 06:39:34 am

Quote
It's survival of the fittest and anarchy is the retarded guy with messed up legs.

Do you honestly believe that a group's ability ultimately to murder peaceful people who disagree with them (and get away with it) is proof of their ideology's superiority? If so, you are just plain psychotic, and I will have to refrain from any further discussion with you. As Alice said to the Cheshire Cat, I do not want to go among mad people.

Oh but we're all mad here. The only question is will you be the one eating or the one being eaten.

J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 06:57:28 am
Pray enlighten me, then.

As you clearly point out. States always end up consuming any nearby attempts at an anarchist society.

States have always done so*. That they always will is not certain -

You are clearly right about that.

Quote
*It is also worth noting that it took England five hundred years to conquer pre-Cromwell Ireland (which had no state),

Ireland often had kingdoms and such, which were kind of like states.

Quote
and the Holy Roman Empire three hundred years to undermine and finally overthrow the Icelandic commonwealth - and what allowed them to do so was that what little central government the gošorš system had limited the number of competitors in the market for protection and jurisprudence, which allowed them to be bribed and threatened into submission one by one without people having the ability to switch to new gošorš to maintain their independence.

Yes. It probably helped that Iceland was way the hell away from anywhere anybody cared about, and had no particular riches. It took a long time partly because nobody much cared about them. But that implies that an anarchic community might survive if it presents an even worse risk/reward ratio and it does not enrage anybody too much.

Quote
And as for the people of the American frontier, they voluntarily ceded their self-governance to the state because their society had not integrated the idea suggesting they should do otherwise.

Yes, that's what usually happened in the past.

Quote
But since their inception in the late 1800s, the concepts of non-coercive governance and self-ownership have steadily grown in popularity, and the rate of their growth has increased substantially in the past few decades. It's too late for the state to quash them.

That's a vitally important change. Over the past 180 years or so, leading up to and beyond the 1848 uprising, the people who wanted change were dominated by socialists etc. Now that those are discredited more people are ready to give anarchy a turn.

Quote
And as more people have adopted those ideas, more strategies for defeating the state have emerged.

I hope it won't come to that. If you need a strategy that's followed by more than a small minority of your anarchists, then you're well on your way to government.

Quote
Eventually, the market will defeat all political systems.

That's kind of like saying that eventually the Internet will defeat US Golf Association. They're different kinds of systems that people have different goals for. But I can't say it will never happen.

Quote
Quote
It's survival of the fittest and anarchy is the retarded guy with messed up legs.

Do you honestly believe that a group's ability ultimately to murder peaceful people who disagree with them (and get away with it) is proof of their ideology's superiority?

What he said doesn't have to mean that, though maybe he does mean that. If it's true that vicious governments will inevitably trample any anarchy, then we will eventually give up on anarchy because we will find by long painful experience that we can't protect it from governments. That doesn't make governments "right". If it turns out that there are parts of the Amazon that nobody can live in because the mosquitoes will suck out all your blood, that doesn't make the mosquitoes "right". It just means you can't live there until you find a way to deal with the mosquitoes.


If it's true that vicious governments will try to destroy any anarchy just as they try to destroy each other, then it's a constraint. You have to find a way to handle the foreign governments or it won't work. We knew that already. Holt presents it as a gotcha and we can't say for sure how we'd handle it. Maybe it's really just a yes-but, and I can't imagine how to persuade Holt of that.

SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 07:46:05 am
Sometimes it's less clear. If the other guy has been aggressing against me there might be some circumstance where it's appropriate for me to punch him in the nose in response.

Sloppy, sloppy use of language and sloppy critical thinking. Let me red letter it for you. There are several formulations, but for our purposes here, L. Neil Smith's should do. "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."

In your almost-a-scenario, you use the wiggle word, "aggression," without any clear definition. If your guy has verbally "aggressed" against you my saying that your mother wears army boots, there is no "force," so you would unequivocally be violating the ZAP if you punched him in the nose. If he had "initiated" (i.e., started it) "force" (i.e., physical aggression) against you, it would have been he who violated the ZAP.

Now, there are nuances. Fraud is usually included with the initiation of force, as is the threat of force, but for most situations, the key words are initiate and force. Got it?

happycrow on April 26, 2011, 08:19:00 am
Hmm! Ed is asking the phony tourist if he's lost. That's pretty clever. Rhonda is going to have to give Ed a lot of slack because her mission depends on him, or someone like him, caving. Could there be a Ceres-wide search going on for the girl? That would be interesting.

Addressing a stranger as "friend" creeps me out a little, though. It reminds me of that original Star Trek episode with Landroo, the mass mind. 

I did it all the time, until John McCain slathered it all over his political campaign.  It's both a regional thing and a carefully-loaded word, given the situation.  I'd guess Ed was originally from the stretch between Hell Paso and south-central Arizona, given his use of the word and his easy use of Spanish (until the narcos started truly screwing it up, the guys who actually *live* on the border here get along with each other just fine).

mellyrn on April 26, 2011, 09:08:15 am
Quote
It would be a blow, yes, but if you try to cushion that too much then you wind up with a bunch of rich people controlling everything.

The 100% inheritance tax would only affect those who don't put everything into something like a trust long before "inheritance" is ever a factor.  It was a really rich guy who said, "Own nothing; control everything."

If laws are passed outlawing trustlike entities, the very laws specifying what may and may not be done help define the ways to get around the laws.  Then more laws are written, till the contracts are so involved and convoluted that no one can read them in a lifetime.  Then, as per Prigogine, the system breaks down under its own complexity and some new pattern arises.


Quote
Quote
*It is also worth noting that it took England five hundred years to conquer pre-Cromwell Ireland (which had no state),

Ireland often had kingdoms and such, which were kind of like states.

States, plural, thus multiple foci of power, each one needing to be dealt with, instead of A state where, if the head of state conceded, all his followers would, well, follow suit.  "A" state might have gone down in less than half a millennium, perhaps.

Quote
Quote
And as more people have adopted those ideas, more strategies for defeating the state have emerged.

.... If you need a strategy that's followed by more than a small minority of your anarchists, then you're well on your way to government.

If a few hundred million people independently agreeing to go on strike is well on its way to "government", then the word "government" is well on its way to uselessly vague.

Holt on April 26, 2011, 10:44:18 am
What he said doesn't have to mean that, though maybe he does mean that. If it's true that vicious governments will inevitably trample any anarchy, then we will eventually give up on anarchy because we will find by long painful experience that we can't protect it from governments. That doesn't make governments "right". If it turns out that there are parts of the Amazon that nobody can live in because the mosquitoes will suck out all your blood, that doesn't make the mosquitoes "right". It just means you can't live there until you find a way to deal with the mosquitoes.


If it's true that vicious governments will try to destroy any anarchy just as they try to destroy each other, then it's a constraint. You have to find a way to handle the foreign governments or it won't work. We knew that already. Holt presents it as a gotcha and we can't say for sure how we'd handle it. Maybe it's really just a yes-but, and I can't imagine how to persuade Holt of that.


Not even vicious governments are needed to defeat Anarchy. Look at Denmark. For quite a while they were very tolerant of their little anarchist microstate despite it flaunting the drugs laws openly and generally being a prat. They asked nicely for the guys to stop selling drugs in stalls on the street (not asking them to stop selling drugs mind you) and in return the anarchists commenced to be even more dickish.
Now the microstate is being reabsorbed into Denmark.

This is the fate that awaits any anarchy. Organised people will always trump unorganised people. Ten people pulling together will always accomplish more than ten people pulling in different directions.

happycrow on April 26, 2011, 12:03:48 pm
This is the fate that awaits any anarchy. Organised people will always trump unorganised people. Ten people pulling together will always accomplish more than ten people pulling in different directions.

What does that have to do with government?  Ten people being told what to do 'or else' will accomplish less than ten people pulling together every time, too.

Holt on April 26, 2011, 12:23:26 pm
This is the fate that awaits any anarchy. Organised people will always trump unorganised people. Ten people pulling together will always accomplish more than ten people pulling in different directions.

What does that have to do with government?  Ten people being told what to do 'or else' will accomplish less than ten people pulling together every time, too.

See here is the problem. Civilised Government isn't some big bad monster who wants an excuse to kill you and fornicate with the corpse.
It's a group of people with their own interests at heart and their own interests do not permit them to go down the Stalinist route. Ok the USA is an exception to the rule which explains why its got so many anarchists and created this insane "libertarian" phenomena. But still look at the civilised world and its governments, more concerned with helping people than raping babies and eating puppies.

J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 12:58:26 pm
Quote
Quote
And as more people have adopted those ideas, more strategies for defeating the state have emerged.

.... If you need a strategy that's followed by more than a small minority of your anarchists, then you're well on your way to government.

If a few hundred million people independently agreeing to go on strike is well on its way to "government", then the word "government" is well on its way to uselessly vague.

If it's some fraction of the people deciding go "go on strike" that doesn't sound too onerous. Not like an actual strategy, the way I had in mind.

The sort of thing where someone tries to negotiate with the enemy, and tells everybody to stage a boycott on enemy products, and then the negotiations look like they're going well so he says to go ahead and buy, but then there's another snag and it looks like no deal and he tells them to boycott again ... that one isn't government until you start punishing people who don't boycott. But the more you depend on everybody to respond the same at the same time, the more the temptation to try to make them do it....

It looks like another semantic thing, where I wasn't using the words right for you. I'm going to just accept that this happens sometimes and we can clear it up if it's worth the trouble.

quadibloc on April 26, 2011, 01:03:30 pm
There are several formulations, but for our purposes here, L. Neil Smith's should do. "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."
Oh. So, since advocating the initiation of force is something no human being has the right to do, it does not constitute initiation of force to take the people who say, "Gee, maybe we should go back to having a government", and march them off to the salt mines?

Right.

However, I think I will give both you and L. Neil Smith the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that neither of you really meant it the way it sounded. That would really shatter my illusions to find that you anarchists are just like all the others...

mellyrn on April 26, 2011, 03:28:25 pm
Quote
it does not constitute initiation of force to take the people who say, "Gee, maybe we should go back to having a government", and march them off to the salt mines?

Took me a while, but I finally understood you.  Saying, "Gee, maybe we should go back to forcing people to do what a leader (or leading body) says" constitutes "advocating" the initiation of force, therefore marching them off to the salt mines is, under the ZAP, merely self-defense.  Yes?

Well, I do have some questions about "advocating" the initiation of force.  At the moment I'm thinking, "On my planet, advocate away!  That way we know who you are."  I don't think I'd do anything about you until you started actively arranging it. 

Quote
That would really shatter my illusions to find that you anarchists are just like all the others...

Please do note that one can adhere to the ZAP without being an anarchist, and one can be an anarchist without the ZAP.  So, finding problems with the one does not necessarily imply problems with the other.  If you don't like this expression of the ZAP, it does not follow that you don't like anarchy.  Just sayin'.

quadibloc on April 26, 2011, 03:49:49 pm
Took me a while, but I finally understood you.
I'm sorry that my point wasn't clear - but, indeed, it was perhaps a very unexpected one. I was being sarcastic, because while what I quoted could be taken to imply what I imputed to it, suppressing dissent is so clearly against everything the ZAP stands for, and part of government rule at its worst, that my point wasn't that what I was referring to... was a real problem. Just a sign that if something like this could get by as a formulation of the ZAP, some people had really not thought this thing through.

SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 04:23:56 pm
There are several formulations, but for our purposes here, L. Neil Smith's should do. "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."
Oh. So, since advocating the initiation of force is something no human being has the right to do, it does not constitute initiation of force to take the people who say, "Gee, maybe we should go back to having a government", and march them off to the salt mines?

Right.

However, I think I will give both you and L. Neil Smith the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that neither of you really meant it the way it sounded. That would really shatter my illusions to find that you anarchists are just like all the others...

Good pickup! Luckily, your instinct is correct. I don't like Neil's use of that word and concept there, because it is not clear. Nonetheless, since it is not itself the initiation of force, the threat of force or fraud, you may say it with impunity--at least physical impunity. Anyone could certainly refuse to do business with you. As a real world example, I boycott original posts by CG and the Dolt, clearly because of their advocacy of might-makes-right thinking. (I do read posts by other people who devastate their arguments; that is almost always good for a laugh.)

Anyway, I think Neil meant it somewhat differently than it sounds. Think instead of these to situations:

+ You vote in favor of a referendum that would empower the police to initiate force against someone who has not initiated force against anyone else, i.e., a victimless "crime" such as prostitution. That sort of advocacy is a violation of the ZAP.

+ You see our neighbor smoking in his back yard and you identify the substance as marijuana by its smell. If you call the cops, having good reason to believe they will initiate force, your advocacy has initiated force and violated the ZAP.
 
That sort of advocacy is what I think Neil had in mind. In any case, for the purposes of this discussion, that is what I mean (as does the YouTube animation).

Holt on April 26, 2011, 04:34:30 pm
Oh come now. Surely not even you believe in a victimless crime?