Debunking statism: so easy a caveman can do it

[sth]

Poverty: "The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount. The state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money"

Well damn dude, I'd say you and I both meet that definition now don't we? Otherwise we'd both be as rich as Bill Gates.

people who say things like 'class war isn't helpful for anyone' are the ones most liable in the event of a radical uprising.

I don't understand your point, please explain how I am most liable in the event of a radical uprising.

dude the fact that you're calling yourself impoverished compared to one of the richest men in the world is exactly why i said you're not willing to examine your privilege.

[keyboardlover]

dude the fact that you're calling yourself impoverished compared to one of the richest men in the world is exactly why i said you're not willing to examine your privilege.

I don't understand that argument at all. I correctly used the word poverty. You're going to have to explain that one...

[sth]

dude the fact that you're calling yourself impoverished compared to one of the richest men in the world is exactly why i said you're not willing to examine your privilege.

I don't understand that argument at all. I correctly used the word poverty. You're going to have to explain that one...

you are making yourself into a victim of your definition, when you know damn well that you are not in a state of poverty.

[keyboardlover]

you are making yourself into a victim of your definition, when you know damn well that you are not in a state of poverty.

By definition of the word itself, of course I am! And of course I'm a victim of statism, so are you!

You have to really clarify that argument dude...that's fuzzy as hell...

[sth]

okay, i think this conversation has ceased to be productive. you're intentionally missing the point to service your argument by broadening the definition of the term.

[keyboardlover]

okay, i think this conversation has ceased to be productive. you're intentionally missing the point to service your argument by broadening the definition of the term.

It might help if you clarified what you believe someone's wealth/privilege/class status has to do with their perceptions of statism. The vast majority of liberty/anarchy people I know are lower to middle class. But even if that wasn't the case, I'm failing to see a connection.

In fact, I would argue that since modern day statism is largely based on corporatism, more people at the top would be advocates of statism, since their wealth is dependent upon it. And poverty is caused by statism; more government or reform never actually ease poverty. Poverty and war will always exist so long as statism does, because these things are good for business.

[tjcaustin]

I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you?  That doesn't sound like respecting other peoples' opinions, that sounds like someone that gets offended by having to be able to defend their own views (e.g.- claims that burden of proof isn't on you, that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion if someone else's is "so wrong")

All I've seen is a bunch of "No, you're wrong and if you don't think what I think, clearly you can't think"

It's easy to claim this when you disgree with someone - just as it is easy for jd to make abusive and partisan posts and then pretend to be Teachers Pet. But if you think there is a claim I have made that I haven't proved, then post it and I'll explain why you are wrong. You may not agree with my arguments - I expect you wouldn't - but they have been made.

and a lot of preposterous internet posturing about how he started it by calling you a troll.

I think you are being a touch hypocritical: someone was rude to me, I was brusque back. When jd resented I hadn't been politer to a poster whose opinions he shares, I pointed out that I wasn't the one who had initiated the rudeness, and jd then became obsessed with saving face. You can either ignore this diversion (I would) or say "What goes around, comes around." Or you could join in with jd and demand that people who disagree with you put you with being called trolls, but I'd hope that you'd be more mature than that.

  A claim, that in and of itself isn't entirely true because I believe you started things off in the other thread, again with baseless allegations, claiming that if he believed what he posted he *couldn't* use logic.

This is utterly untrue, although I accept that you may think it is true because you can't understand what I actually said. Which is that his arguments were wrong - mostly because they fitted classical categories of logical fallacies - independent of his position. Not because of it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you won't understand me now - but trust me; VERY different!

I'll give you a free example:

I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you? 

1. Pointing out that someone is arguing by conclusion is not an ad hominem attack. Sorry, but if you don't know the difference, it's your problem - really. You need to use google, a dictionary, or that list of fallacies someone posted. Really, do - in fact read the whole list, you'll benefit from it.

2. Pointing out that what some said is provably wrong because it relies on the strong form of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis is, again, not an ad hom. You not know what the hell it means- I am sure you don't - but that doesn't make it an ad hom. Use google, or ask for an explanation.

..And I these two points alone cover eight of my replies! So the idea that I haven't made substantive logical replies is ludicrous - you might not have understood them, but again, not my problem!

As to this:

I apologize as I got the order of events out of whack and then spoke out of turn because of it.  I had thought that you had either stated something earlier than you did or confused something someone else said as something from you. 

But perhaps such inflammatory language such as "you can't use logic" "you don't understand them" and the other assumptive language about my(and others') knowledge background has been substantial enough to obfuscate your logical replies? This may be a fault of mine, but I can't take a differing(or even similar) opinion unguarded when it comes cloaked in ad hominem statements.  This lead to my original post.

Even still, you'll note that I'm not using quotes around logical or even stating that I think you're wrong, but more that it's not what I took from your statements. Which lead to my original question; which, as you've just stated, you're ok with.  I'm not surprised that it wasn't taken at face value, what with this being the internet and everything sounding like an attack, but there it is.  Hell, I agree with most of what you think as I think that while KL paints a nice picture of how awesome things would be if we were all "left alone", it's not how the world is or even can be.

[Krogenar]

Just saying things like, "you're delusional" or "Fail," does not constitute a successful rebuttal. It's considered trolling, in other words, making a statement to elicit an emotional response. Please come back when you have something to say which is both logical and germane to the subject being discussed, and which you can support with evidence.

Right on. Attack ideas not people.

[keyboardlover]

Voluntaryism in action, right here

[funkymeeba]

My favorite thing about Ayn Rand's fan club is that they never shut the **** up. They are worse than the preachers at a university campus.

[Krogenar]

Absolutely so -- people are self-organizing, and no state ordinarily has to step in make these sorts of ad hoc organizations come into being. I couldn't disagree more with tp's statement that a people without a government are like a family without a parent. I don't know about tp or others, but I'm not a child in need of coddling. KBL you point out that these associations are voluntary -- but who is to say that the current government was not voluntarily entered into as well? Assuming you are American like myself, we are free to leave this country for greener shores. Our decision to remain means we are willingly accepting the rules of society. I think government is a natural extension of these people-based organizations, but they can grow out of control.

Also, I recognize (as I think you do) the primacy of the individual over the state. The state was created for the people, by the people. Government should be subservient to people, not the other way around. The people do not exist for the sake of the government. This seems so simple as sound almost stupid, but before the American Revolution it was decidedly the opposite; the people of France existed for the sake of the monarchy.

See, here is where I think you're missing some things (at least in terms of American history). First off, the current government was NOT entered into voluntarily. Those who were against federalization ended up getting screwed by those who did. This is very ironic since many of the framers were against direct democracy (preferring the concept of a republic for fear that minorities would get screwed) - yet that's exactly what they did!

True, when the Constitution was finally ratified (and when the Civil War was ended) there was not a perfect consensus -- but when has there ever been a complete consensus on anything? Too idealistic a goal in my opinion. The overwhelming sense I get from you KBL is that you desire (like me) to be left alone. Just get out of my underwear please, Uncle Sam? I'm in business for myself, and the government resembles an idiot partner who can not do anything right who demands his fair share of the profits so he can then piss it away on magic beans. I know how you feel, KBL, I do. But still, when I say that membership in the American Experiment is voluntary I mean that there are no walls. I do not mean figurative walls, I mean walls with barbed wire and guards. That sounds like not much, but, look abroad -- there are places where the government doesn't let you leave. You belong to them. I'm talking about Cuba, China (to some extent) and North Korea. Everyone who lives in America right now tacitly agrees to abide by the laws of the country. Or they can leave. That may not be an appealing option, but it is an option. Still waiting for Alec Baldwin to become Canadian.

You say, "there's no where else to go!" -- well, what you're sort of saying then is that there's nowhere that's better to go. So America is still the best available option we have.

As for "being free to leave", I didn't choose to be born here. And yet I was born into a bondage and a slavery; a system of force and coercion. If I want the right to be left alone, where can I go? Antarctica? Should the native americans have "just left" if they didn't like the rules? Or what about the Syrians or Palestinians, or countless other Arabs being mowed down by oppressive government forces? That argument legitimizes tyranny. Why should I leave when I'm trying to make things better? Why should I leave when Congress are the ones who suck?

You're making an argument to remain, but not an argument that you are being forced to remain under their power. You could choose some other country, that provides for more liberty, or a more satifying mixture of liberties (Singapore, as an example.) I'm not claiming the choices are necessarily varied or attractive, just there. There are no truly lawless places in the world, anymore, if that's what you're after.

I'm not saying guidelines or rules are not good or useful; just that they should be voluntary.

Well, when we say 'rules' we mean laws. Laws cannot be voluntary, or they would serve no purpose. It would be fun for a while, sure (Krog: "Red light?... going to take it as more of a suggestion." (upshifts gears) Woo-hoo!!!") but eventually chaos would ensue, or other people's liberties would be infringed upon. You clearly value your own liberty, KBL, as you should -- what about the freedoms of others? Your freedom ends where mine begins -- working out where they begin and end is the tricky (often screwed up) part.

Are you saying I'm giving Singaporeans an inch? Not sure what you mean.

No, I just meant in the context of statism i.e. even a minarchical view of statism means oppression is inevitable.

Minarchical -- a minimalized state. I guess it depends on what you deem to be oppression. I think we may differ on where the threshold lies.

Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun,

I agree! Yay! (jumps up and down excitedly)

RPG,

(jumping slows down)

tank

(stops jumping)

nuclear weapon

Ok, maybe we should go back to talking about keyboards.

, etc. if they so choose to. Because, not only does that happen now, but because it's legitimized by government, those who end up owning such things are inevitably 90% more likely to be the most dangerous people who could be in control of them. Hundreds of thousands of CHILDREN dead in the middle east - dude, I would prefer any peaceful individual owned these bombs rather than anyone taking orders from congress. Is it a risk? Of course, but it's one I'm willing to live with.

I'm not thrilled that any government has a nuclear weapon, but if you really, really believe that a private individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, then there's a gulf between our two philosophies that just really can't be bridged. Applying the principles of Utilitarianism (what is right is that which maximizes happiness for the maximum number of people) to the idea that everyone should have the right own a nuke just doesn't make any sense to me. Please don't take this personally, KBL. In order to determine if something would be a good law or ethical principle, consider: if everyone followed this principle, would the overall outcome be good, or overall bad? Imagine everyone owning a nuke, KBL. Would that be a world you want to live in? It's not even about whether you trust all the people in the world (an impossibility) with owning a nuclear weapon, KBL. It's about this -- cats. Cats in a world in which everyone owns a nuke? We. Are. Dead.

Anyway, please, please, please retract your 'private individuals should be allowed to own a nuke' statement. I pinky swear promise I won't mention it again if you won't. 

[sth]

There are no truly lawless places in the world, anymore, if that's what you're after.

somalia, but that is changing.

[Krogenar]

There are no truly lawless places in the world, anymore, if that's what you're after.

somalia, but that is changing.

Somalia is getting so gentrified; that whole neighborhood used to have so much more character, y'know? Now all the yuppies are movin' in.

[keyboardlover]

I do not mean figurative walls, I mean walls with barbed wire and guards. That sounds like not much, but, look abroad -- there are places where the government doesn't let you leave. You belong to them. I'm talking about Cuba, China (to some extent) and North Korea. Everyone who lives in America right now tacitly agrees to abide by the laws of the country. Or they can leave. That may not be an appealing option, but it is an option. Still waiting for Alec Baldwin to become Canadian.

You say, "there's no where else to go!" -- well, what you're sort of saying then is that there's nowhere that's better to go. So America is still the best available option we have.

Well America has a special kind of walls don't they...they have the taxes you are still forced to pay even if you move to another country, unless you renounce citizenship (a tool of control). They also have a global police force which, arguably, no one is free from. I agree that America is still preferred to most other places though, if only because we can own firearms.

You're making an argument to remain, but not an argument that you are being forced to remain under their power. You could choose some other country, that provides for more liberty, or a more satifying mixture of liberties (Singapore, as an example.) I'm not claiming the choices are necessarily varied or attractive, just there. There are no truly lawless places in the world, anymore, if that's what you're after.

That's not the point though; the point is why should I leave when they're the ones who suck? I'm trying to make things better, so why should I leave?

Well, when we say 'rules' we mean laws. Laws cannot be voluntary, or they would serve no purpose. It would be fun for a while, sure (Krog: "Red light?... going to take it as more of a suggestion." (upshifts gears) Woo-hoo!!!") but eventually chaos would ensue, or other people's liberties would be infringed upon. You clearly value your own liberty, KBL, as you should -- what about the freedoms of others? Your freedom ends where mine begins -- working out where they begin and end is the tricky (often screwed up) part.

Rules or laws within an association can be voluntary - but if you don't follow them you can be kicked out of the association. That's still voluntary, because you're not forced to be in the association. See what I mean? I'm not advocating for no rules, rather, no rulers.

I'm not thrilled that any government has a nuclear weapon, but if you really, really believe that a private individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, then there's a gulf between our two philosophies that just really can't be bridged. Applying the principles of Utilitarianism (what is right is that which maximizes happiness for the maximum number of people) to the idea that everyone should have the right own a nuke just doesn't make any sense to me. Please don't take this personally, KBL. In order to determine if something would be a good law or ethical principle, consider: if everyone followed this principle, would the overall outcome be good, or overall bad? Imagine everyone owning a nuke, KBL. Would that be a world you want to live in? It's not even about whether you trust all the people in the world (an impossibility) with owning a nuclear weapon, KBL. It's about this -- cats. Cats in a world in which everyone owns a nuke? We. Are. Dead.

Anyway, please, please, please retract your 'private individuals should be allowed to own a nuke' statement. I pinky swear promise I won't mention it again if you won't. 

The "nuke" argument is not a good one, because attaining a nuclear weapon is not something that the vast majority of individuals can effectively do. It takes serious wealth to purchase one and an incredible amount of resources to build one. That's something that only a state or a very large corporation in the context of corporate statism could really do. In a true voluntaryist society, it would just be highly unlikely that folks or a group would even have a weapon such as that. And if they did own it, for the purpose of being protected from governments, I have no problem with that. Hope that clarifies the point for you.

[iri]

I agree that America is still preferred to most other places though, if only because we can own firearms.

what about dozens other countries in the world where people can own firearms?

[keyboardlover]

what about dozens other countries in the world where people can own firearms?

That's a good point and I was thinking about that...unfortunately I'm not too familiar. Aren't most of them typically much more restrictive though?

Edit: Krog, I thought more about the nuke argument today. I think it is even less likely than I originally thought (not just from the standpoint of cost and labor) but also from a market standpoint. Who are the biggest consumers in the nuke market? Very large monopolies on violence, of course; states. In a Voluntaryist world, the idea of a nuke market even existing, without a central government and an industrial military complex, doesn't seem likely at all, does it?

[Krogenar]

what about dozens other countries in the world where people can own firearms?

That's a good point and I was thinking about that...unfortunately I'm not too familiar. Aren't most of them typically much more restrictive though?

Again, the point I was making is that no one is being forced to live in America, under American law. Just as anyone who posts at GH has implicitly agreed (actually, scratch that -- we have all clicked the checkbox when registering and therefore explicitly agreed) to the TOS (Terms of Service). When we break those rules, there are consequences. Now, there's no box to click for the U.S. Constitution, but we all are aware that we must live according to the laws of the country. And similar to GH, if we feel that the laws are unjust, unevenly applied, etc. we have the right to leave. Sounds stupid, but there are countries that don't let you leave.

Cuba is a standout in this regard. Socialist ideas transformed an island paradise into the Caribbean's version of Alcatraz. Behold the power of bad ideas. 

Edit: Krog, I thought more about the nuke argument today. I think it is even less likely than I originally thought (not just from the standpoint of cost and labor) but also from a market standpoint.

Well, no -- this is not about whether it is feasible or likely for individuals to own a nuclear weapon -- it's whether they should be allowed to own or make one. Is it an extreme example of Second Amendment rights? Yes, it is -- but extreme examples can help us explore the strength of our beliefs. A single man with a handgun can defend himself, a man with a nuke can not only defend himself, he could accidentally vaporize Detroit. Once you go beyond a certain level of lethality, your liberties start to seriously endanger the liberties of others. My cat decides to use my nuclear weapon as a scratching post, so you and your family are vaporized as a result? Not a reasonable position. Is an RPG or a grenade reasonable? I don't think so. But hey, this is why states should have more authority, because we don't have to have a single solution for everyone. States could differ on what is or is not reasonable.

Now you will inevitably ask -- "if an individual should not own a nuclear weapon, why should the government?" -- well, the one serious advantage to large numbers of people being in control of something as dangerous as a nuclear weapon is that it reduces their number, there is at least some semblance of oversight, and large bodies of people (committees) tend to move ponderously slow. And nukes are really for national defense, not personal defense. Only one body is really responsible for national defense, and that's the federal government.

Who are the biggest consumers in the nuke market? Very large monopolies on violence, of course; states. In a Voluntaryist world, the idea of a nuke market even existing, without a central government and an industrial military complex, doesn't seem likely at all, does it?

Sadly, there is a market for nuclear weapons. The highest demand for them is from people who do not have them. But let's go to your hypothetical world (correct me if I'm getting the details wrong)... we're going to your world now.

(things get fuzzy... doodly, doodly, doodly...)
(Krog appears in Voluntaryist World)

Ok, we're here. There are laws, but no rulers. Is that correct? (I don't think that's possible, frankly, like having eggs but no chickens, so no chicken poop to clean up, but it's your world, so here we go) I imagine we all live in very well-defended armored, underground complexes -- like Fallout 3 but without the apocalypse happening. Generally speaking, when people interact they are extraordinarily polite. Then there's news: one of these groups is building a superweapon. Some people think it's a load of nonsense, but some people aren't so sure. Then they demonstrate the weapon in an uninhabited area with the simple statement that despite everyone being very well defended, they are really, really people you don't want piss off.

Before long, this group begins to exert social pressure on others: "No, you go ahead. No, it's fine I don't mind!" These people built the weapon solely to enhance their own security (and according to your earliest statement, they have every right to do so). In order to regain the balance of power everyone has to have a nuclear weapon, and everyone will start trying to make or obtain them. I don't believe that there's a way to have an advanced society without laws (and therefore lawmakers, and the means to enforce those laws). Humans have a natural tendency to associate and there's no avoiding it, hence, no way to avoid laws, lawmakers and the forceful application of those laws. All we can hope to do is keep the those governments from becoming oppressive.

KBL, the only statement I'm trying to wrangle from you is this: the individual freedom to protect oneself is not absolute. I'm not asking you to declare that you have no right to defend yourself, I'm just asking that you acknowledge that in a modern society a limitless right to protect yourself would be injurious to the rights of others.

Also, if you do agree with me, there's no shame in it. There's never any shame in modifying or updating what you believe. Exchange truth for falsehood without ego. That's why I love to debate as much as I do -- I'll never know if my beliefs are actually right or wrong if I don't test them against the beliefs of others. Mills said it best:

[T]hough all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?

You were right about child safety seats. The idea that children are wards of the state (when they already have parents) is a bad idea. I've updated my own beliefs. I think you should as well. Oh, and there's this --

You may want to research seasteading -- fascinating idea. What if we could create a free, open market for economies? It's a wild idea, check it out: http://www.seasteading.org/

So picture it -- we all own a ship of some kind, with the necessary technology to produce drinking water, food, electricity, etc. -- and each man (and his or her family) can be an island. These various ships can then congregate in international waters and form their own government. Then, when the government gets out of hand, the various ships can part ways. As you pointed out, yes, you could leave the U.S., but there's not a lot of options. Well, with seasteading you could experiment with governments. The main problem with governments is that they are the original 'too-big-to-fail' entities. With seasteading when a government grouping of individual ships 'failed' (as defined by the majority or the minority) an individual ship could choose to leave.

So imagine it... governments competing for citizens! You run your government like crap, soon you won't have any citizens! Open-source goverment. 

[FoxWolf1]

You may want to research seasteading -- fascinating idea. What if we could create a free, open market for economies? It's a wild idea, check it out: http://www.seasteading.org/

So picture it -- we all own a ship of some kind, with the necessary technology to produce drinking water, food, electricity, etc. -- and each man (and his or her family) can be an island. These various ships can then congregate in international waters and form their own government. Then, when the government gets out of hand, the various ships can part ways. As you pointed out, yes, you could leave the U.S., but there's not a lot of options. Well, with seasteading you could experiment with governments. The main problem with governments is that they are the original 'too-big-to-fail' entities. With seasteading when a government grouping of individual ships 'failed' (as defined by the majority or the minority) an individual ship could choose to leave.

So imagine it... governments competing for citizens! You run your government like crap, soon you won't have any citizens!

I really like the basic ideas of seasteading-- heck, if someone built a self-sufficient boat, I'd be quite tempted to buy one and live on it-- but implementation is difficult. How do you ensure that ships can always leave ship-clusters? It seems like it'd be very easy for a ship to become physically trapped, or held in place by the threat of force. But also...suppose you succeed in implementing a system where ships can leave whenever they'd like. How could any of the governments that arise implement laws, if people can just leave rather than receive punishment? On the other hand, if you allow governments to suspend an individual's right of departure if the individual has committed a crime, then they could construct their laws so as to keep everyone's right of departure suspended unless the government chooses to release them.

The only fix I can see to these issues would be to have some sort of minimal, overarching government, but then you are in the same boat (pun intended) as any other theorist-- how do you keep the government under control?

[jdcarpe]

The only fix I can see to these issues would be to have some sort of minimal, overarching government, but then you are in the same boat (pun intended) as any other theorist-- how do you keep the government under control?

Like this (the original reason for needing the 2nd Amendment, which was the genesis of this discussion):

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...

[Krogenar]

I really like the basic ideas of seasteading-- heck, if someone built a self-sufficient boat, I'd be quite tempted to buy one and live on it-- but implementation is difficult. How do you ensure that ships can always leave ship-clusters? It seems like it'd be very easy for a ship to become physically trapped, or held in place by the threat of force. But also...suppose you succeed in implementing a system where ships can leave whenever they'd like. How could any of the governments that arise implement laws, if people can just leave rather than receive punishment? On the other hand, if you allow governments to suspend an individual's right of departure if the individual has committed a crime, then they could construct their laws so as to keep everyone's right of departure suspended unless the government chooses to release them.

The only fix I can see to these issues would be to have some sort of minimal, overarching government, but then you are in the same boat (pun intended) as any other theorist-- how do you keep the government under control?

All valid points, but don't confuse a failure present in the system, for a failure of the system.

The judge of a truly good system (in my own view) is not a system that produces no failures (a practical impossibly, as the inputs to any system are in a constant state of flux), but rather a system that adapts to failure successfully. Let's use capitalism as an example. A manufacturer makes a product everyone wants (success), but then they abuse their customers (failure). Because the system is arranged such that customers can rebel against the manufacturer, the system can adapt. The manufacturer can change their behavior (success!) or customers can abandon their product (also success). This is evident everywhere in nature. The water level drops and some animals die (failure) but other animals adapt and grow lungs, or prehensile flippers.

So yeah, some cluster-ship government might decide that no one can leave. Well, news will get around, and eventually no one will trade with them, and they become pariahs -- they fail, and their failure ends with them. The people they oppressed may or may not escape, but there are consequences to bad behavior. I do not believe there is any perfect system -- and there won't be, until we have perfect people.

[keyboardlover]

Well, no -- this is not about whether it is feasible or likely for individuals to own a nuclear weapon -- it's whether they should be allowed to own or make one. Is it an extreme example of Second Amendment rights? Yes, it is -- but extreme examples can help us explore the strength of our beliefs. A single man with a handgun can defend himself, a man with a nuke can not only defend himself, he could accidentally vaporize Detroit. Once you go beyond a certain level of lethality, your liberties start to seriously endanger the liberties of others. My cat decides to use my nuclear weapon as a scratching post, so you and your family are vaporized as a result? Not a reasonable position. Is an RPG or a grenade reasonable? I don't think so. But hey, this is why states should have more authority, because we don't have to have a single solution for everyone. States could differ on what is or is not reasonable.

Ok, and if that's your stance, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. It is a voluntary action, not an ownership of property, that infringes your rights.In the same way that my ownership of a firearm does not infringe upon your right to life, my ownership of an RPG, tank or nuclear weapon does not infringe upon your right to life either. It is an action which does so. So whether or not you believe owning one type of property or another is reasonable is beside the point; by forcing another person at threat of violence to not own something (which doesn't work very well anyway as we know), you are violating their rights to own property which in no way violates your rights. How are you not going to allow a person to acquire or own any of these things? Isn't the issue with gun control exactly the same? It is only an action which can violate your rights. I'm sure you understand this difference. And by saying "states" should be able to decide, you're legitimizing statism; you're saying that a group of people in power who do not represent you and are controlled by corporatism should be able to decide how you should be able to defend yourself. That is so obviously more inherently dangerous than my world!

Now you will inevitably ask -- "if an individual should not own a nuclear weapon, why should the government?" -- well, the one serious advantage to large numbers of people being in control of something as dangerous as a nuclear weapon is that it reduces their number, there is at least some semblance of oversight, and large bodies of people (committees) tend to move ponderously slow. And nukes are really for national defense, not personal defense. Only one body is really responsible for national defense, and that's the federal government.

Again, you need to STAHP legitimizing statism! If nukes are only for national defense and the federal government should be responsible for such, why don't we lead by example and disarm? If national defense and the industrial military complex are so great, why are they violating others' rights to life in foreign countries (and domestically as well) ALL THE DAMN TIME?? If they are supposed to defend, why aren't they doing it? Because, statism! Because politicians are slaves to corporatism, and they're the ones who control our lives with guns and nukes! Why are you advocating such a dangerous world? Isn't it clear now how much less inherently dangerous mine is?

Regarding how you are imagining a voluntaryist world, I don't think it means what you think it means. You need to question statism at every single level to see that voluntaryism is not that much different from the way we voluntarily self-organize every day. People won't really live that differently. Will people be able to defend themselves and will bad things happen? Of course, but the key is that violence won't be legitimized like you are doing by legitimizing statism. One group building a weapon really doesn't concern me...they can own whatever property they want. It's the initial action of using it violently on another person which violates the NAP, and those affected have the right to defend themselves. See, your assumption that a limitless right to protect oneself is injurious to the rights of others is utterly false; owning one type of property or another in no way violates other people's rights and it's the same way now with firearms.

[Malphas]

Actually, no, I agree with jdcarpe that you're a troll.

You say that to anyone who disagrees with your bizarre philosophies though, regardless of what they've said or how they said it.

[Malphas]

KL, can you tell me how an anarchist society deals with the problem of gangs looting, raping, and destroying property?

if, as you posit, there is a codified society that these hypothetical gangs are looting, raping and destroying the property of, then the society can do what they see fit, be that physical violence, running them out of town, enacting extreme self-defense measures etc.

That requires organisation, and the better organised the measures are the more effective they'll be. At what point do you decide organisation, consensus-based decision making, etc. - i.e. some of the things that define government - are bad?

On a side note, I think I'd prefer the statist police and judicial system we have now, regardless of its imperfections than a system that runs on vigilantes and lynch mobs.

[keyboardlover]

On a side note, I think I'd prefer the statist police and judicial system we have now, regardless of its imperfections than a system that runs on vigilantes and lynch mobs.

Because statism isn't a system that runs on vigilantes and lynch mobs? Bro, do you even industrial military complex? Do you even indefinite detention? Talk about bizarre philosophy...hell, talk about extremism!

And no, those who disagree with me aren't trolls. Trolls are those who troll (like those who make fun of me or my arguments without providing any legitimate arguments to refute them). The writing is on the wall as to who those people are.

[Malphas]

Because statism isn't a system that runs on vigilantes and lynch mobs? Bro, do you even industrial military complex? Do you even indefinite detention? Talk about bizarre philosophy...hell, talk about extremism!

There's an obvious difference between the abuses in the current system and an actual system based solely on chasing down people who may-or-may-not be guilty of a crime and shooting them or hanging them from the nearest tree. Your childish refusal to acknowledge that just highlights how juvenile your repeated arguments on this topic really are.

[keyboardlover]

Indulge me then Malphas, what exactly IS the clear difference? Why are murder and theft "ok" when the government does it?

[Malphas]

I never said it was OK. Will you ever quit with the incessant strawmans? The difference is that the current system is mostly fair and occasionally unjust/abusive (in first world countries). That doesn't mean abuses aren't still rife, but they're the minority. You'll probably deny that, but it's accurate. Whilst with a disorganised mob it's the other way round.

[Krogenar]

Ok, and if that's your stance, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. It is a voluntary action, not an ownership of property, that infringes your rights.

If I understand your position correctly:

Only actions can infringe upon people's rights, not ownership of something that could potentially infringe upon someone else's rights?

Is that correct?

[keyboardlover]

That's correct Krog. In order to try to keep someone from owning certain property, you will need to initiate force, which is a violation of that person's rights.

[sth]

That's correct Krog. In order to try to keep someone from owning certain property, you will need to initiate force, which is a violation of that person's rights.

what gives you the "right" to own property? and why do you, as an anti-statist, even speak in terms of rights?

[keyboardlover]

I think that people should have the right to own things they purchase or  barter/trade for. Rights aren't necessarily statist; I don't believe in rights granted by the state, rather, those voluntarily agreed to.

[sth]

I think that people should have the right to own things they purchase or  barter/trade for. Rights aren't necessarily statist; I don't believe in rights granted by the state, rather, those voluntarily agreed to.

well that is a somewhat contentious definition of property for an anarchist, but i'm being a little pedantic on purpose.

rights are absolutely statist. there is no authority to grant rights other than a state or other hierarchical organization. the entire concept of rights assumes that there is a list of things a state should not do or should protect its citizens from infringements thereof.
in a voluntary agreement, there is very little stopping anybody from infringing upon another's previously agreed-upon 'rights' other than direct retaliation (as in, nonmediated). not that that's a bad thing per se, but rights are basically a nonissue at that point.

[jdcarpe]

On the Right to Property, I here paraphrase Jefferson, while inserting the original concept as Locke described:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and [Property.]"

The state doesn't grant rights. It's supposed to recognize the Rights we already possess, and to protect those Rights. The only power the state should have are those powers granted to it by its citizens.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

[keyboardlover]

Yea the concept of rights doesn't have to be those granted by the state. When I first started to learn about anarchism I felt the same way as sth, but "rights" are really just a concept...they aren't, by definition, a statist one. For instance, I was born and therefore have a right to my life.

[sth]

Yea the concept of rights doesn't have to be those granted by the state. When I first started to learn about anarchism I felt the same way as sth, but "rights" are really just a concept...they aren't, by definition, a statist one. For instance, I was born and therefore have a right to my life.

who gives you the right to your life? why do you have a right to your life? what about being born guarantees anything other than that you will at some point die?

[keyboardlover]

who gives you the right to your life? why do you have a right to your life? what about being born guarantees anything other than that you will at some point die?

It's not the point who gave it to me...but I have it because I was born.  It's not a question of whether anything is "guaranteed" or not. It's "self-evident" as jdcarpe mentioned. I am alive, therefore I have the right to be alive. "Rights" are just a concept...they don't have to be provided by someone or guarantee anything. We can use a different word but I think you're sticking to the statist concept of "rights" too much...I mean, I think that the concept is useful otherwise. Now, of course death is a part of life but that doesn't mean another person has the right to take my life. I believe that the initiation of force is not legitimate.

[sth]

who gives you the right to your life? why do you have a right to your life? what about being born guarantees anything other than that you will at some point die?

It's not the point who gave it to me...but I have it because I was born.  It's not a question of whether anything is "guaranteed" or not. It's "self-evident" as jdcarpe mentioned. I am alive, therefore I have the right to be alive. "Rights" are just a concept...they don't have to be provided by someone or guarantee anything.

Well what happens if somebody infringes upon that right? What if they kill you? How are you going to retaliate against their infringement of your rights? It's clear that you think the state should not. Should anyone else step in to do so? Who gives them that authority? You sure can't if you are dead.

I'm getting rhetorical here, but the point I'm trying to make is that even in a system of voluntary associations, a 'right' is a concept that requires force to either defend or infringe. Outside of that context it's just a euphemistic and unenforceable way to tell people what to do/what not to do.

[keyboardlover]

Well what happens if somebody infringes upon that right? What if they kill you? How are you going to retaliate against their infringement of your rights? It's clear that you think the state should not. Should anyone else step in to do so? Who gives them that authority? You sure can't if you are dead.

I'm getting rhetorical here, but the point I'm trying to make is that even in a system of voluntary associations, a 'right' is a concept that requires force to either defend or infringe. Outside of that context it's just a euphemistic and unenforceable way to tell people what to do/what not to do.

I said earlier that I believe in the non-aggression principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

I believe that initiation of force, by anyone (including myself) is illegitimate, and that everyone should have the right to defend themselves (their lives and those of their family) as well as their property. And if I'm killed then I personally don't believe anyone should retaliate. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. So I think we're actually on the same page about that.

Now, I suspect you're familiar with the more anarcho-socialist view of property which is that everything should be collectively divided up equally. And I personally think that type of association is fine as long as it's voluntary...one issue I've found is that it's not easy to make that kind of association voluntary though. What I mentioned about the definition of poverty in that case is important since anarcho-socialists tend to be pro-class war and I am not. I am comfortable with the fact that there is inequality in the world. I don't necessarily believe that everyone wants to have more. Many folks are quite comfortable with what they have. Regardless, I don't think it is up to me or you or anyone to determine what anyone should have.

[sth]

Just because you believe that does not make it a universal truth. But now we're getting a little too philosophical ) For what it's worth I agree that you should defend yourself if you feel you should but I would not consider that a right at that point, because if it is that means there needs to be an outside arbiter to determine the legitimacy of your action.

[keyboardlover]

Well I did mention before that I like both the concepts of independent insurance and dispute resolution organizations to help people manage risk and resolve conflicts. Though I don't think anyone should be forced to depend on anything like that. But you're still using a statist concept of a right though...I believe that the right to defend my life, family and property is self-evident. And if you're going to ask me if I think everyone has that right self-evidently, yes, I do.

[Malphas]

Rights are inherently a statist concept. Without that context it just becomes a meaningless word, regardless of whether you believe they're self-evident or not. Although saying it's "self-evident" is a BS argument if you ask me, there's no logic or reasoning for it other than just saying "I think this is the case, therefore it is".

If we lived in a society without any sort of hierarchical power structure, then you claiming you have the right to life, and me claiming I have the right to kill you would be just as valid without a statist-esque consensus and framework to determine which of us was correct and the use of force to administer it.

[keyboardlover]

The belief that rights are inherently a statist concept comes from the statist concept of rights...it's completely false!

Do you not innately have the right to your life??? Why do I need to legitimize a monopoly on violence in order to know that I have a right to my life? All I need to know is that I AM alive! Why on earth do you need someone else to determine whether violating such a right is wrong? We're both human beings!

Dude, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't need ANYONE else to determine, for me, whether someone violating another person's right to life is wrong or not. You think that you need to legitimize a monopoly on violence and arbitration in order to justify the right of another person's life - I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

[hashbaz]

Crazy pills are also a statist concept.  Why would you legitimize monopolized violence by referencing them?

[iri]

reading this thread drunk i feel urgent need to stab certain persons in the eye. 

[tjcaustin]

I hope it's not me, I don't want to sort through $20,000 in keycaps with one eye.

[keyboardlover]

Lol, trolling is only ok when a moderator does it.

Doesn't that make moderation a monopoly on trolling?

[sth]

Do you not innately have the right to your life???

no.

[keyboardlover]

Ok, so then please explain the need for a human monopoly on violence to legitimize your right to your life.

Now, at this point, it should be clear how the belief in statism is a complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of human life.

[hashbaz]

Lol, trolling is only ok when a moderator does it.

Doesn't that make moderation a monopoly on trolling?

You need to drop that moderatist mindset.

Trolling is subtle and designed to trick people into responding as if it was serious.  What I did was a good-natured jab at how repetitive your posts in this thread are.

[keyboardlover]

Right, and I responded with a good-natured jab at how we need moderators to troll to stop us from trolling

Hey did you guys know that dancing is a crime?