Debunking statism: so easy a caveman can do it

[sth]

You realise how utterly naive and fallacious that sort of utopian thinking is? All the proponents of every extremist system in history have used that argument, that everything would magically work out. Look at Soviet Communism and how that turned out for the most obvious example.

yeah but the state, malphas. the state.

[keyboardlover]

You realise how utterly naive and fallacious that sort of utopian thinking is? All the proponents of every extremist system in history have used that argument, that everything would magically work out. Look at Soviet Communism and how that turned out for the most obvious example.

Yea and look how the beliefs Gandhi and MLK Jr. taught (much of which learned from peaceful works written including Civil Disobediance by Thoreau) completely changed the way people thought about nonviolent protest, and literally changed history. Utopian? Not even close. Naive or fallacious? History proves otherwise. I'm not making some assumption like the world is going to turn into a paradise overnight and I never asserted such. Just that positive change comes from positive individual leadership by example, education, etc. Which...is...true!

[hashbaz]

Well no, Malphas asserted that they must be granted by a governing body.

Malphas said that they currently happen to be protected by the world's governing bodies, and that is why they "exist".  Substitute voluntary anarchic community for state and you agree with him.  The point is they only exist because we agree that they do.  They are not innate.

There isn't "no recourse"; appropriate recourse is at the discretion of the individual.

I said no legitimate recourse, as in recourse to a system of justice as defined by my voluntary community.  Going outside that system will lead to inconsistency and lawlessness and endless cycles of retaliation.  Curbing those bad outcomes is exactly why systems of justice are created.

But in a voluntaryist world you can't assume that these evils will just naturally "multiply"...don't forget that things like education and force please a huge part in how we're raised and grow up and what we believe as adults. Most voluntaryists are proponents of things like peaceful leadership by example, peaceful education and peaceful parenting. Things like that have the power to completely change a society one association at a time.

...you assume, along with every other utopian dreamer.  And how do you bootstrap that kind of thing starting from where we are?

[hashbaz]

yeah but the state, malphas. the state.

Sig-worthy ^^

[keyboardlover]

Malphas said that they currently happen to be protected by the world's governing bodies, and that is why they "exist".  Substitute voluntary anarchic community for state and you agree with him.  The point is they only exist because we agree that they do.  They are not innate.

Sure they are. Innate means "originating in the mind".

I said no legitimate recourse, as in recourse to a system of justice as defined by my voluntary community.  Going outside that system will lead to inconsistency and lawlessness and endless cycles of retaliation.  Curbing those bad outcomes is exactly why systems of justice are created.

Yea, but so what? I didn't say there's no justice in my world; only those which are voluntarily agreed to. If you don't agree to it and you do bad things, fine, but everyone else has the right to protect themselves and choose how to interact with you so it will be self-defeating for you anyway.

...you assume, along with every other utopian dreamer.  And how do you bootstrap that kind of thing starting from where we are?

I've addressed the "utopian" and "dreamer" part of your assumption in my post above where I correctly link these beliefs to historical proof. How do you bootstrap it? Now we're getting somewhere. Change has to start with the individual. There are lots of awesome movements and education happening right now. For instance things like the Free State Project in New Hampshire or the Blue Ridge Project in NC are really cool. As Gandhi said, you have to be the change you wish to see in the world.

[sth]

Sure they are. Innate means "originating in the mind".

in·nate 
/iˈnāt/
Adjective
1Inborn; natural.
2Originating in the mind.



innate CAN mean that.

[keyboardlover]

Ok, so if we don't agree with one definition let's pick one we can agree on.

This is called "voluntaryism in action"

As is this thread, as is Geekhack itself!

[hashbaz]

Sure they are. Innate means "originating in the mind".

Don't be pedantic.  I've asked you to provide evidence that they exist objectively, and you fell back on "it's my belief".  I take that as an admission that you agree that they only exist in the sense that we agree to respect them.

Yea, but so what? I didn't say there's no justice in my world; only those which are voluntarily agreed to. If you don't agree to it and you do bad things, fine, but everyone else has the right to protect themselves and choose how to interact with you so it will be self-defeating for you anyway.

I'm just trying to understand your position and point out ways in which centralized authority makes sense.  I've said why it seems to me that war and chaos seem more likely under an anarchic system than the current one.

Feel free to jump in with your thoughts on this, sth.

I've addressed the "utopian" and "dreamer" part of your assumption in my post above where I correctly link these beliefs to historical proof. How do you bootstrap it? Now we're getting somewhere. Change has to start with the individual. There are lots of awesome movements and education happening right now. For instance things like the Free State Project in New Hampshire or the Blue Ridge Project in NC are really cool. As Gandhi said, you have to be the change you wish to see in the world.

Referencing Gandhi and MLK does not qualify as historical proof that your position is correct.

[keyboardlover]

Don't be pedantic.  I've asked you to provide evidence that they exist objectively, and you fell back on "it's my belief".  I take that as an admission that you agree that they only exist in the sense that we agree to respect them.

Well you didn't seem to like my logic about the nature of human life itself so...that's what I "believe" so it can arguably be "innate" in either way.

I'm just trying to understand your position and point out ways in which centralized authority makes sense.  I've said why it seems to me that war and chaos seem more likely under an anarchic system than the current one.

I get that and appreciate that, but...you're wrong

Anarchy isn't chaos and it doesn't mean there are no rules - simply no rulers.

Feel free to jump in with your thoughts on this, sth.

Why? I'm still waiting for sth to explain how he feels either a monopoly of or initiation of force are necessary in free market capitalism. "YOU explain how it works" or "Because it is" are not arguments.

Referencing Gandhi and MLK does not qualify as historical proof that your position is correct.

So, do you not agree that positive education and leadership by example bring positive change? What exactly don't you agree with?

[hashbaz]

Well you didn't seem to like my logic about the nature of human life itself so...that's what I "believe" so it can arguably be "innate" in either way.

That was not logic, it was assertion and non-sequitur.  All ideas originate in the mind, so using "innate" in that sense is a no-op.  I asked you to provide evidence of the objective or absolute existence of the right to life, and you came back with "I live!".  I pressed you further and you said "people agree on it".  That is exactly what Malphas and I have been saying.

I get that and appreciate that, but...you're wrong

Anarchy isn't chaos and it doesn't mean there are no rules - simply no rulers.

Yes I get that.  I'm saying that without a central, multi-community system of justice, war and chaos will result from vendettas and retaliation among individuals.  I'm saying that the rulerless rules that you have described seem inadequate to me.  Can you explain why I'm wrong?

So, do you not agree that positive education and leadership by example bring positive change? What exactly don't you agree with?

I disagree that positive education and leadership by example will cure all ills and solve the problem of crime and retaliatory escalation, as you implied it would when you brought it up.  Education can and does bring positive change, sure, but it's not magic.  Lots of people have tried setting up utopian experiments.  Are you aware of any that have succeeded?

[keyboardlover]

That was not logic, it was assertion and non-sequitur.  All ideas originate in the mind, so using "innate" in that sense is a no-op.  I asked you to provide evidence of the objective or absolute existence of the right to life, and you came back with "I live!".  I pressed you further and you said "people agree on it".  That is exactly what Malphas and I have been saying.

Yea but I also said that the nature of human beings is that they have the choice whether or not to violate another's right to life. Do you agree with that or not? If you do I theorize that, based on this, other humans have a right to protect their right to live. Do you agree with that or not?

Yes I get that.  I'm saying that without a central, multi-community system of justice, war and chaos will result from vendettas and retaliation among individuals.  I'm saying that the rulerless rules that you have described seem inadequate to me.  Can you explain why I'm wrong?

Well yea; what you just described is actually the current state of affairs. What we have NOW is war and chaos everywhere at all times resulting not only from vendettas and retaliation but from a struggle for global power, caused by statism. Individuals don't wage war...governments do. I agree that Voluntaryism is not a cure for evil and never asserted such; only that statism is a belief in the legitimization as such. However if you'd like a real-life example, post-revolutionary Spain was a very peaceful and egalitarian anarchist society for nearly 3 years before being destroyed by force.

I disagree that positive education and leadership by example will cure all ills and solve the problem of crime and retaliatory escalation, as you implied it would when you brought it up.  Education can and does bring positive change, sure, but it's not magic.  Lots of people have tried setting up utopian experiments.  Are you aware of any that have succeeded?

When did I say it would "cure all ills"? In fact I said the opposite; I said that it would not. The only thing I assert (and I believe correctly) is that it's a step in the right direction and has the ability to bring about positive change. Who said anything about magic? And who said anything about a "UTOPIA"? That's the whole point of voluntaryism; one man's utopia is another man's hell. One person's utopia is filled with cocaine and hookers, another's is a quiet spot on a beach with a library of old books. The entire concept of utopia is entirely subject to that of any individual.

[sth]

Why? I'm still waiting for sth to explain how he feels either a monopoly of or initiation of force are necessary in free market capitalism. "YOU explain how it works" or "Because it is" are not arguments.

okay, you're either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding my rhetoric here.

how can i make myself clearer? what i am saying is that there is no historical or other non-hypothetical case in which a capitalist free market can exist, let alone without the use of force, because capitalism is an economic system predicated entirely on force and coercion.

i think you are jumping to the conclusion that good will and 'voting with your dollar' are enough to prevent corruption on any scale, let alone a capitalist system large enough to provide goods/services for a large population. what i am saying is that that has never been proven to be the case, and cannot be because of the 'inherent' nature of capitalism.

i reconcile this the same way i reconcile the lack of anarchism in the world today; it's a personal philosophy for me that informs the decisions i make, not a system of beliefs that i think everybody must follow. otherwise i would be using the same rationale for coercion that states use -- 'it's good enough for almost everybody, and if it's not good enough for you then tough, dems da breaks'.

[hashbaz]

Yea but I also said that the nature of human beings is that they have the choice whether or not to violate another's right to life. Do you agree with that or not? If you do I theorize that, based on this, other humans have a right to protect their right to live. Do you agree with that or not?

Humans can choose whether or not to kill another human, yes.  Humans can also choose to protect themselves.  Animals can do both of these things too.  It does not follow that you have a "right" to protect yourself, i.e., that you will be held blameless for killing another rather than being killed yourself.  That is a judgment external to the reality of people harming each other.  I agree that it is a useful judgment, but it is not implied naturally.  In an anarchic system you could imagine that not everyone would agree with it and thus, not be bound by it.

Well yea; what you just described is actually the current state of affairs. What we have NOW is war and chaos everywhere at all times resulting not only from vendettas and retaliation but from a struggle for global power, caused by statism. Individuals don't wage war...governments do. I agree that Voluntaryism is not a cure for evil and never asserted such; only that statism is a belief in the legitimization as such.

This is a dodge.  I asked you to explain why crime and vendetta escalation would not increase when crimes committed by out-of-community individuals are essentially unpunishable except by tracking down the supposed perpetrators myself.

However if you'd like a real-life example, post-revolutionary Spain was a very peaceful and egalitarian anarchist society for nearly 3 years before being destroyed by force.

I will look it up.

When did I say it would "cure all ills"? In fact I said the opposite; I said that it would not. The only thing I assert (and I believe correctly) is that it's a step in the right direction and has the ability to bring about positive change. Who said anything about magic? And who said anything about a "UTOPIA"? That's the whole point of voluntaryism; one man's utopia is another man's hell. One person's utopia is filled with cocaine and hookers, another's is a quiet spot on a beach with a library of old books. The entire concept of utopia is entirely subject to that of any individual.

I asked you about retaliation escalation and you responded with "it won't be an issue due to education and leadership".  Sounds magical and utopian to me.  Context:

Putting the revenge aspect aside, if there is no recourse for murder and theft, then murder and theft will increase.  If there are no legitimate means to punish criminals that are not part of my voluntary community, then retaliatory violence and theft from the outside will also increase.  War and chaos and social instability seem likely in a scenario like this.

There isn't "no recourse"; appropriate recourse is at the discretion of the individual. But in a voluntaryist world you can't assume that these evils will just naturally "multiply"...don't forget that things like education and force please a huge part in how we're raised and grow up and what we believe as adults. Most voluntaryists are proponents of things like peaceful leadership by example, peaceful education and peaceful parenting. Things like that have the power to completely change a society one association at a time.

[tjcaustin]

To me, a lot of this thread seems to boil down to belief and idealism vs reality.  That makes it feel like this never-ending spiral that has no answer.

[keyboardlover]

Humans can choose whether or not to kill another human, yes.  Humans can also choose to protect themselves.  Animals can do both of these things too.  It does not follow that you have a "right" to protect yourself, i.e., that you will be held blameless for killing another rather than being killed yourself.  That is a judgment external to the reality of people harming each other.  I agree that it is a useful judgment, but it is not implied naturally.  In an anarchic system you could imagine that not everyone would agree with it and thus, not be bound by it.

I don't agree that animals can choose either - their lives are driven by instinct. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between human beings and other animals which is the cognitive ability to reason. We are not driven by instinct in the same way they are. The whole point of voluntaryism is that everyone need not be bound by any prescribed method of governance; they are free to associate in the ways that make sense for them.

This is a dodge.  I asked you to explain why crime and vendetta escalation would not increase when crimes committed by out-of-community individuals are essentially unpunishable except by tracking down the supposed perpetrators myself.

Agreed
I would have provided a more thorough answer but it was dinner time...sorry about that
So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen because everyone at that point is truly their first line of defense; no one is depending on an ineffective system of policing to protect them. "Call 9-11 and Die" is a good book about how police, in reality, are entirely ineffective at protecting people from crimes and stopping them from happening. It is much easier to agress upon and coerce an individual which doesn't have a good voluntary way of protecting themself, than one who has.

I will look it up.

Thanks; I found it super interesting. Here's some other good info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

I asked you about retaliation escalation and you responded with "it won't be an issue due to education and leadership".  Sounds magical and utopian to me.

I didn't say it wouldn't be an issue; rather that positive education are a step in the right direction. And, they are among many tools which can be instrumental in creating social change. For proof of this, simply look at how many people believe that anarchy is chaos, and that government is order. That is what most people are raised to believe.

[Malphas]

However if you'd like a real-life example, post-revolutionary Spain was a very peaceful and egalitarian anarchist society for nearly 3 years before being destroyed by force.

I will look it up.

And you'll probably discover when you look at it objectively that it wasn't all as rosy as keyboardlover tries to make out it is. To claim that there wasn't coercion, force and the threat of violence as well as actual violence in the anarchist state following the Spanish Revolution is to outright lie. People that didn't co-operate with collectivisation were lined up and shot. I suspect keyboardlover has been reading more biased Anarchist literature on the topic rather than history books though.

[keyboardlover]

Hey man, that's not fair. Earlier in the thread I said very specifically that all forms of leftist anarchism violate the NAP because they depend on force and Spain was no different. I never said it was "rosy", but it IS true that the society created was very egalitarian in nature...fair enough about the "peaceful" part though. But then, I never said violence would be non-existant without government...

And anyway, the argument can be made that the violence is inherently less BECAUSE there is no war like that which is waged by government all the time.

[hashbaz]

I don't agree that animals can choose either - they're lives are driven by instinct. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between human beings and other animals which is the cognitive ability to reason. We are not driven by instinct in the same way they are. The whole point of voluntaryism is that everyone need not be bound by any prescribed method of governance; they are free to associate in the ways that make sense for them.

This is a side point.  I'll give you that animals have no ability to choose in any matter.  It still doesn't follow that human choice implies rights.

I didn't say it wouldn't be an issue;

So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen

Utopia.

[keyboardlover]

Utopia: An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

[hashbaz]

I'm glad we agree.

[keyboardlover]

So in what way did I describe or advocate for utopia? I've acknowledged many times at this point that there is nothing perfect about voluntaryism or about human interaction at all - that's the whole point of voluntaryism. It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of a utopia.

[hashbaz]

I asked you about crime and escalation of vendettas.  Your utopian response is that it won't be an issue.  I call bull****.

[keyboardlover]

Dude, please quote where I said it wouldn't be an issue. My response was not utopian in nature at all.

How is saying something is less likely to happen and providing evidence for such a "utopian" response?

So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen because everyone at that point is truly their first line of defense; no one is depending on an ineffective system of policing to protect them. "Call 9-11 and Die" is a good book about how police, in reality, are entirely ineffective at protecting people from crimes and stopping them from happening. It is much easier to agress upon and coerce an individual which doesn't have a good voluntary way of protecting themself, than one who has.

[hashbaz]

So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen

[keyboardlover]

Right, and then I explained why. How is that "Utopian"?

So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen because everyone at that point is truly their first line of defense; no one is depending on an ineffective system of policing to protect them. "Call 9-11 and Die" is a good book about how police, in reality, are entirely ineffective at protecting people from crimes and stopping them from happening. It is much easier to agress upon and coerce an individual which doesn't have a good voluntary way of protecting themself, than one who has.

[hashbaz]

Right, and then I explained why. How is that "Utopian"?

Utopia: An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

You're imagining away a set of real problems that every society in the history of human civilization has had to deal with.

Edit: to elaborate, your explanation is that everyone will be their own defense.  That is a premise of my argument.  Please explain why my conclusion is incorrect.

[keyboardlover]

You're imagining away a set of real problems that every society in the history of human civilization has had to deal with.

Oh no no, I never "imagined" them away. I believe very much that a voluntary society will be imperfect and have violence, simply because humans participate in it. In fact MY idea of a Utopia wouldn't even have humans in it, since humans are imperfect by their very nature. The point is that the nature of a voluntary society itself is one which, for very real and tangible reasons, would have nowhere near the scale of violence as a statist society, because such violence isn't legitimized and everyone is truly their first line of defense and has the ability to voluntarily protect themselves in the way they see fit. There is nothing "utopian" - there are very real arguments. I never imagined anything away.

Edit: to elaborate, your explanation is that everyone will be their own defense.  That is a premise of my argument.  Please explain why my conclusion is incorrect.

Because people are less likely to agress or coerce upon an individual or group of individuals who can adequately protect themselves. I thought I made that point earlier.

[hashbaz]

Deterrence will only get you so far.  The fact that everyone is armed will not stop crime, as you yourself say.  When something bad happens, the reaction will be to seek revenge.  Then revenge will be sought in turn by the original perpetrators (or those perceived by the victims to be the perpetrators), and so on.

A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.

[sth]

A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.

the realistic possibility of that happening is... debatable at best )

[Malphas]

The point is that the nature of a voluntary society itself is one which, for very real and tangible reasons, would have nowhere near the scale of violence as a statist society, because such violence isn't legitimized and everyone is truly their first line of defense and has the ability to voluntarily protect themselves in the way they see fit. T

That's just wishful thinking and distorting reality to suit your agenda though. There's no reason to believe that would be the case other than the reasoning in your own head. There's no actual evidence of that being the case whilst every example e.g. pre-statist society, and current stateless nations would indicate it's actually much more violence in that scenario. Of course you repeatedly like to dismiss the violence in other parts of the world as being the result of Imperialism/Statism when they're clearly not, so no doubt you'll just repeat yourself here again rather than analyse your argument.

[keyboardlover]

Deterrence will only get you so far.  The fact that everyone is armed will not stop crime, as you yourself say.  When something bad happens, the reaction will be to seek revenge.  Then revenge will be sought in turn by the original perpetrators (or those perceived by the victims to be the perpetrators), and so on.

A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.

...based on a a very incorrect assumption that everyone has the same sense of justice. So I would really disagree with that...how does a monopoly on arbitration short-circuit a cycle of revenge in a way that a voluntary society with individual protection and independent dispute-resolution would not? As soon as gang-bangers get out of jail their looking over their shoulder (and sometimes they don't even make it home or get killed in jail). I agree with you that revenge is an unfortunate part of society but I don't see how it would be more rampant in my world. Especially when putting people in cages isn't effective at stopping that. Nor do I wish to legitimize such aggression anyway...

That's just wishful thinking and distorting reality to suit your agenda though. There's no reason to believe that would be the case other than the reasoning in your own head. There's no actual evidence of that being the case whilst every example e.g. pre-statist society, and current stateless nations would indicate it's actually much more violence in that scenario. Of course you repeatedly like to dismiss the violence in other parts of the world as being the result of Imperialism/Statism when they're clearly not, so no doubt you'll just repeat yourself here again rather than analyse your argument.

Lol what? Tell me that more people were aggressed upon in say, Native American society or post-revolutionary Spain than in the Middle East due to statism in the past 3-8 years...

If you're going by body count bro it's not even going to be CLOSE.

Or how about all the innocent people our government and many others put in cages? How about our prison population? It's one of the largest in the world.

[hashbaz]

A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.

the realistic possibility of that happening is... debatable at best )

Well then let's debate it.  My view is that, apart from the effectiveness (or not) of a justice system, its mere existence deters vendettas, within reason.  That is the core of my question to KL.  If there's no system, then the _only_ recourse is revenge.  That seems much more likely to escalate into vendetta.

[keyboardlover]

Well then let's debate it.  My view is that, apart from the effectiveness (or not) of a justice system, its mere existence deters vendettas, within reason.  That is the core of my question to KL.  If there's no system, then the _only_ recourse is revenge.  That seems much more likely to escalate into vendetta.

Well if it worked, it would work. As it is, criminals don't seem to let laws or the system itself stop them from committing crime. I live about 30 min. away from a city in which a murder occurs nearly every day and the police and courts are doing absolutely nothing to stop or prevent crime. In fact, it's been getting worse every year. Actually, often times these folks are too afraid - either for their own lives or careers - to even get involved.

[Malphas]

Lol what? Tell me that more people were aggressed upon in say, Native American society or post-revolutionary Spain than in the Middle East due to statism in the past 3-8 years...

If you're going by body count bro it's not even going to be CLOSE.

How about instead of cherry picking examples to suit your agenda (again) you compare the overall level of violence in society in Statist nations compared to examples where government influence is negligible. If you did that it's fairly obvious that lack of government and rule of law equates to more violence. Like I said, innocent people were lined up and shot in post-revolutionary Spain on flimsy pretences, Native American society obviously had war between tribes, etc. etc.

[keyboardlover]

I'm not saying those things aren't bad, but how is that worse than, say, murdering 500,000 Iraqi children upon invading Iraq?

I mean how was an organization able to do that without recourse ANYWAY?

Because it was legitimized.

[hashbaz]

...based on a a very incorrect assumption that everyone has the same sense of justice. So I would really disagree with that...how does a monopoly on arbitration short-circuit a cycle of revenge in a way that a voluntary society with individual protection and independent dispute-resolution would not?

Because the monopoly holds the biggest stick in the room.  Independent dispute resolution only works if both parties are willing to submit to its jurisdiction.  The use of coercive force is required.  And I don't see that being viable in a system of lots of independent voluntary communities.

As soon as gang-bangers get out of jail their looking over their shoulder (and sometimes they don't even make it home or get killed in jail). I agree with you that revenge is an unfortunate part of society but I don't see how it would be more rampant in my world. Especially when putting people in cages isn't effective at stopping that. Nor do I wish to legitimize such aggression anyway...

This is a fair point.  No one is claiming that the current system is perfect.  What I'm trying to get at is that if my only recourse is DIY justice, that will promote feuds in more cases than where we are forced to go through a third party.  I remain unconvinced that independent conflict resolution organizations would be effective in cases of violent crime and outright theft (as opposed to disputes about things like neighborhood ordinances and petty cash disputes).

[sth]

A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.

the realistic possibility of that happening is... debatable at best )

Well then let's debate it.  My view is that, apart from the effectiveness (or not) of a justice system, its mere existence deters vendettas, within reason.  That is the core of my question to KL.  If there's no system, then the _only_ recourse is revenge.  That seems much more likely to escalate into vendetta.

i was unclear; i bolded 'impartial' because i don't believe that to be a realistic possibility for any centralized justice system... simply because a centralized system means ignoring aspects outside of the 'center' (in the US that means white and middle class). case in point: our judicial system is absolutely classist (bank CEO? you're off scot-free! B&E and stole someone's Xbox? busted!) and racist (compare the sentences for powder cocaine and crack --until recently i believe-- , and then look at the usage demographics of those two substances).

[Malphas]

Well if it worked, it would work. As it is, criminals don't seem to let laws or the system itself stop them from committing crime. I live about 30 min. away from a city in which a murder occurs nearly every day and the police and courts are doing absolutely nothing to stop or prevent crime. In fact, it's been getting worse every year. Actually, often times these folks are too afraid - either for their own lives or careers - to even get involved.

Again, your logic fails though. You can't use the fact crime still exists as evidence that the justice system isn't deterring crime because you're not able to count all the crimes not being committed as a result of it, only the ones that are committed regardless. There's also nothing that links this fact with the assertion that crime will be less in a system without a state judicial system. There's also real-world examples of where increased state police/judicial activity has had a measured effect on reducing crime, like New York from the 90's onwards.

[keyboardlover]

i was unclear; i bolded 'impartial' because i don't believe that to be a realistic possibility for any centralized justice system... simply because a centralized system means ignoring aspects outside of the 'center' (in the US that means white and middle class). case in point: our judicial system is absolutely classist (bank CEO? you're off scot-free! B&E and stole someone's Xbox? busted!) and racist (compare the sentences for powder cocaine and crack --until recently i believe-- , and then look at the usage demographics of those two substances).

That's not correct - it has nothing to do with class; rather money. It goes back to my whole point that politicians always make decisions which benefit their wallets; they are controlled by corporatism. Simply ask yourself if the decisions being made are "good for business" and you will better understand how the system works.

Again, your logic fails though. You can't use the fact crime still exists as evidence that the justice system isn't deterring crime because you're not able to count all the crimes not being committed as a result of it, only the ones that are committed regardless. There's also nothing that links this fact with the assertion that crime will be less in a system without a state judicial system.

I didn't - I used the very obvious ineffectiveness of the system itself to prove my point. If it worked, it would work!

[Malphas]

I'm not saying those things aren't bad, but how is that worse than, say, murdering 500,000 Iraqi children upon invading Iraq?

I mean how was an organization able to do that without recourse ANYWAY?

Because it was legitimized.

Right. You keep using wars as evidence of how statism is inherently evil. Yet you're conveniently neglecting to acknowledge the countries that aren't engaging in any wars, which indicates that it's not the system at fault at all, but individual governments. There's over a dozen nations that don't even have any sort of armed forces, let alone engaging in wars.

[keyboardlover]

Right. You keep using wars as evidence of how statism is inherently evil. Yet you're conveniently neglecting to acknowledge the countries that aren't engaging in any wars, which indicates that it's not the system at fault at all, but individual governments. There's over a dozen nations that don't even have any sort of armed forces, let alone engaging in wars.

Ok, let's name them and if you like we can go one by one and describe in all the ways they are all nothing but violent monopolies of aggression.

Because the monopoly holds the biggest stick in the room.  Independent dispute resolution only works if both parties are willing to submit to its jurisdiction.  The use of coercive force is required.  And I don't see that being viable in a system of lots of independent voluntary communities.

well yea, they're the biggest bully on the block; that's why they can essentially operate how they want. Enforcement of laws and arbitration are therefore subject to the discretion of the monopoly. That's an inherent form of oppression. It's, as I said, a monopoly on violence.

This is a fair point.  No one is claiming that the current system is perfect.  What I'm trying to get at is that if my only recourse is DIY justice, that will promote feuds in more cases than where we are forced to go through a third party.  I remain unconvinced that independent conflict resolution organizations would be effective in cases of violent crime and outright theft (as opposed to disputes about things like neighborhood ordinances and petty cash disputes).

Well my point is that I have no idea what you're idea of justice is, nor anyone else, so I have no right to enforce any such idea upon you or another person.

[sth]

i was unclear; i bolded 'impartial' because i don't believe that to be a realistic possibility for any centralized justice system... simply because a centralized system means ignoring aspects outside of the 'center' (in the US that means white and middle class). case in point: our judicial system is absolutely classist (bank CEO? you're off scot-free! B&E and stole someone's Xbox? busted!) and racist (compare the sentences for powder cocaine and crack --until recently i believe-- , and then look at the usage demographics of those two substances).

That's not correct - it has nothing to do with class; rather money. It goes back to my whole point that politicians always make decisions which benefit their wallets; they are controlled by corporatism. Simply ask yourself if the decisions being made are "good for business" and you will better understand how the system works.

oh my god dude do i really need to say 'economic class' instead of just 'class'

this is why nothing new ever comes out of these discussions

[Malphas]

I didn't - I used the very obvious ineffectiveness of the system itself to prove my point. If it worked, it would work!

But you've failed to prove any obvious ineffectiveness. What are you measuring against? What level of crime statistics would you consider to indicate that it's effective? Zero? You can't give proper answers to these rudimentary questions because you actually can't prove anything and are working backwards and coming up with your conclusion first (that state control is ineffective at tackling crime) then framing the facts to suit that. You're failing to recognise the fact I just mentioned that state activity was responsible for reducing crime in New York from the 90's onwards. I called you out on ignoring and failing to address arguments before, which you flatly denied, yet here we are again with you doing it for the upteenth time.

[keyboardlover]

But you've failed to prove any obvious ineffectiveness. What are you measuring against? What level of crime statistics would you consider to indicate that it's effective? Zero? You can't give proper answers to these rudimentary questions because you actually can't prove anything and are working backwards and coming up with your conclusion first (that state control is ineffective at tackling crime) then framing the facts to suit that. You're failing to recognise the fact I just mentioned that state activity was responsible for reducing crime in New York from the 90's onwards. I called you out on ignoring and failing to address arguments before, which you flatly denied, yet here we are again with you doing it for the upteenth time.

500,000 children dead in Iraq is one among MANY state crimes I'm comparing against. Where should I start dude - the Roman Empire? Syria? Lebanon? Iraq? Afghanistan? Palestine? Mexico? Hitler? Stalin? Mao?

These are all HUGE scale conflicts of full-on WAR caused by statism. Compared to individual disputes in the context of society (and especially a voluntary one) it doesn't even compare and to me that's quite obvious. Because it's a question of whether or not a monopoly on violence is being legitimized, which could only inherently be more dangerous than a lack thereof.

[Malphas]

But you've failed to prove any obvious ineffectiveness. What are you measuring against? What level of crime statistics would you consider to indicate that it's effective? Zero? You can't give proper answers to these rudimentary questions because you actually can't prove anything and are working backwards and coming up with your conclusion first (that state control is ineffective at tackling crime) then framing the facts to suit that. You're failing to recognise the fact I just mentioned that state activity was responsible for reducing crime in New York from the 90's onwards. I called you out on ignoring and failing to address arguments before, which you flatly denied, yet here we are again with you doing it for the upteenth time.

500,000 children dead in Iraq is one among MANY state crimes I'm comparing against. Where should I start dude - the Roman Empire? Syria? Lebanon? Iraq? Afghanistan? Palestine? Mexico? Hitler? Stalin? Mao?

These are all HUGE scale conflicts of full-on WAR caused by statism. Compared to individual disputes in the context of society (and especially a voluntary one) it doesn't even compare and to me that's quite obvious. Because it's a question of whether or not a monopoly on violence is being legitimized, which could only inherently be more dangerous than a lack thereof.

See, now you've changed subject - another dishonest tactic I accused you of and you denied. We were discussing the effectiveness of a state police and judiciary system on crime, which clearly means we're referring to individual, domestic crime and until this point that's the examples you were using (murder rate and such). And now that you're in a corner after being confronted with actual facts rather than your baseless assertions you've suddenly widened the topic to include wars and "state crimes" which are clearly a separate topic, even if you do want to classify them as crime (which is basically broadening the definition of the word crime to simply mean "bad stuff" rather than its proper definition).

[keyboardlover]

See, now you've changed subject - another dishonest tactic I accused you of and you denied. We were discussing the effectiveness of a state police and judiciary system on crime, which clearly means we're referring to individual, domestic crime and until this point that's the examples you were using (murder rate and such). And now that you're in a corner after being confronted with actual facts rather than your baseless assertions you've suddenly widened the topic to include wars and "state crimes" which are clearly a separate topic, even if you do want to classify them as crime (which is basically broadening the definition of the word crime to simply mean "bad stuff" rather than its proper definition).

Dude, I'm not in a corner at all. At this point I'm completely confused as to what YOUR argument here even is at this point; I've addressed hashbaz's. But yea, of course what I've mentioned earlier is crime. So anyway, since I've admitted I'm confused at what your actual argument is, I would ask you to please clarify it in your next post and I will address it.

And what's truly dishonest debating is the kind of sidetracking, name-calling, and intimidation you've been doing throughout this entire thread and why I called you a troll in the first place. Claiming I'm "backed into a corner?" B**** please. You're one of the least effective debaters in this thread thus far, as far as I'm concerned.

[hashbaz]

well yea, they're the biggest bully on the block; that's why they can essentially operate how they want. Enforcement of laws and arbitration are therefore subject to the discretion of the monopoly. That's an inherent form of oppression. It's, as I said, a monopoly on violence.

All this is beside the point that I was trying to make.

Well my point is that I have no idea what you're idea of justice is, nor anyone else, so I have no right to enforce any such idea upon you or another person.

Sigh.  More utopian thinking.

[keyboardlover]

Sigh.  More utopian thinking.

You agreed with me that a Utopia is a "perfect world" - so how is that Utopian thinking? I already told you that my idea of Utopia wouldn't have humans in it, since they're imperfect by nature. Recognizing the fact that everyone has a different sense of justice isn't "utopian"; it's a recognition of the reality of human society. It's a recognition of reality!

[tjcaustin]

But you've failed to prove any obvious ineffectiveness. What are you measuring against? What level of crime statistics would you consider to indicate that it's effective? Zero? You can't give proper answers to these rudimentary questions because you actually can't prove anything and are working backwards and coming up with your conclusion first (that state control is ineffective at tackling crime) then framing the facts to suit that. You're failing to recognise the fact I just mentioned that state activity was responsible for reducing crime in New York from the 90's onwards. I called you out on ignoring and failing to address arguments before, which you flatly denied, yet here we are again with you doing it for the upteenth time.

500,000 children dead in Iraq is one among MANY state crimes I'm comparing against. Where should I start dude - the Roman Empire? Syria? Lebanon? Iraq? Afghanistan? Palestine? Mexico? Hitler? Stalin? Mao?

These are all HUGE scale conflicts of full-on WAR caused by statism. Compared to individual disputes in the context of society (and especially a voluntary one) it doesn't even compare and to me that's quite obvious. Because it's a question of whether or not a monopoly on violence is being legitimized, which could only inherently be more dangerous than a lack thereof.

Just because I'm curious, and looked it up, where are you getting that number from?  Because seriously, where did you get that number from?

[keyboardlover]

Just because I'm curious, and looked it up, where are you getting that number from?  Because seriously, where did you get that number from?

It's pretty well-known. He's one source:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

And the psychopath Madeleine Albright infamously said it was "worth it."

Of course when Ron Paul mentioned this in a Republican debate he was booed. Such a dangerous religion statism is...