Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.
I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant. 
Topic: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre - page 6. (Read 6889 times)
The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.
Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor. With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.
Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor. With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.
This is exactly what life is like with a state.
None of the western democracies allow for private property ownership of land. All land is rented from the state. Justice is only available for those that can afford it and certain classes of people are above the law entirely. In some countries your property can be seized at a whim by any uniformed thug who thinks it might have come from the proceeds of growing the wrong vegetables.
All of your criticisms of anarchy are merely describing what it's like to live under the rule of a state.
Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits. 99.9999% of property owners have secure title and are happy with that. There will be a few cases of injustice but that doesn't mean the 99.9999% of us with houses and shares need to do without them does it? Justice is available for all in the US and UK and most decent democracies as the courts facilitate people who represent themselves and there are no win/no fee lawyers is you have a good case.
I think you are hinting that if there were anarchy, you could grow narcotics freely. But if there were no state and you were growing drugs you would still live in a community of people who used to vote for anti-narcotic drug laws so you could expect mobs with AK-47s burning you out. Its not the law is the problem with drugs - its people's beliefs.
The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.
Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor. With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.
This is exactly what life is like with a state.Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor. With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.
None of the western democracies allow for private property ownership of land. All land is rented from the state. Justice is only available for those that can afford it and certain classes of people are above the law entirely. In some countries your property can be seized at a whim by any uniformed thug who thinks it might have come from the proceeds of growing the wrong vegetables.
All of your criticisms of anarchy are merely describing what it's like to live under the rule of a state.
...snip...
All the examples you cite are occurring in societies with large state institutions.
A stateless society is not "anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice". Do you really think anyone who behaved like this would not suffer any consequences?
Learn about Anarcho-capitalism. It's a social system based on a pure free market and is the absolute application of the Non Aggression Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which the vast majority of people already believe and apply in their personal lives. Incidentally, the state (a violently enforced political authority), by definition, contradicts this principal.
All the examples you cite are occurring in societies with large state institutions.
A stateless society is not "anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice". Do you really think anyone who behaved like this would not suffer any consequences?
Learn about Anarcho-capitalism. It's a social system based on a pure free market and is the absolute application of the Non Aggression Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which the vast majority of people already believe and apply in their personal lives. Incidentally, the state (a violently enforced political authority), by definition, contradicts this principal.
The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.
Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor. With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence. Without defence, foreign states will sponsor local proxies as happens in Somalia and the like.
In short, Anarcho-capitalism is that it cannot work as well as a democratic state. Its like comparing walking barefoot to travelling by car; sure barefoot is nice but a car is almost always nicer.
...snip...
But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.
The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).
But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.
The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).
There are reasons why the rule of law is better than the rule of the mob. The state restrains violence. Take it away and you have lynch law. If you lived in the midst of a large group of people and the only form of justice is mob law, you would regard a state with its rules about when you can kill someone as paradise. For example, here in the UK people decided to remove paedophiles from their community. They attacked a paediatrician.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm
That's what happens when you don't have courts.
EDIT: just realised that people are still being killed by mobs making mistakes like this:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/courts-crime/2012/03/30/mum-and-teenager-locked-up-for-vigilante-killing-of-innocent-man-wrongly-branded-a-paedophile-86908-23806339/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234783/Innocent-man-accused-paedophile-hounded-death-vigilantes.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm
All examples of what happens when you replace the rule of law with allowing anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice.
All the examples you cite are occurring in societies with large state institutions.
A stateless society is not "anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice". Do you really think anyone who behaved like this would not suffer any consequences?
Learn about Anarcho-capitalism. It's a social system based on a pure free market and is the absolute application of the Non Aggression Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which the vast majority of people already believe and apply in their personal lives. Incidentally, the state (a violently enforced political authority), by definition, contradicts this principal.
...snip...
You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.
You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.
That market will is working at the moment in the Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan. States like Rwanda, Eritrea and India are sponsoring militias and wreaking havoc on the people who live in those states. Since individuals can never outspend a state, its a market in which those who don't have a state are always the losers.
Are you claiming that these societies are stateless?
Why does an individual need to outspend a state for private defense?
...snip...
But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.
The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).
But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.
The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).
There are reasons why the rule of law is better than the rule of the mob. The state restrains violence. Take it away and you have lynch law. If you lived in the midst of a large group of people and the only form of justice is mob law, you would regard a state with its rules about when you can kill someone as paradise. For example, here in the UK people decided to remove paedophiles from their community. They attacked a paediatrician.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm
That's what happens when you don't have courts.
EDIT: just realised that people are still being killed by mobs making mistakes like this:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/courts-crime/2012/03/30/mum-and-teenager-locked-up-for-vigilante-killing-of-innocent-man-wrongly-branded-a-paedophile-86908-23806339/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234783/Innocent-man-accused-paedophile-hounded-death-vigilantes.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm
All examples of what happens when you replace the rule of law with allowing anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice.
...snip...
You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.
You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.
That market will is working at the moment in the Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan. States like Rwanda, Eritrea and India are sponsoring militias and wreaking havoc on the people who live in those states. Since individuals can never outspend a state, its a market in which those who don't have a state are always the losers.
its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society. Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.
Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.
If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that. And Americans have always voted for such laws. In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour. In the US, the same guys would waste their lives away in jails. That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.
It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices. In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government. Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.
But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.
The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).
...snip...
Look it's ok, I'm not going to argue with you, there's no point. You are a delusional true believer. You want to be a good slave, I don't. You can't possibly change my mind to not want my freedom and I know you are incapable of rational thought because for you to see the gun in the room that is the state will simply cause you way too much cognitive dissonance and you simply reject the reality and cling on to your fantasy. It's human nature.
Look it's ok, I'm not going to argue with you, there's no point. You are a delusional true believer. You want to be a good slave, I don't. You can't possibly change my mind to not want my freedom and I know you are incapable of rational thought because for you to see the gun in the room that is the state will simply cause you way too much cognitive dissonance and you simply reject the reality and cling on to your fantasy. It's human nature.
LeFevre's article fails for the reasons I set out in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.923827
Your response is to say that anyone who points out where he fails is delusional, a slave, whatever. Thats called an ad hominem argument. Its a fallacy - look it up.
Quote
I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly. There is invariably the same oversight. If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others. Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application? They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.
That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it. Having your own democratic state is preferable to that. Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.
Ask who what? What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?
Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys? Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.
You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.
its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society. Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.
Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.
If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that. And Americans have always voted for such laws. In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour. In the US, the same guys waste their lives away in jails. That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.
It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices. In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government. Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.
Look it's ok, I'm not going to argue with you, there's no point. You are a delusional true believer. You want to be a good slave, I don't. You can't possibly change my mind to not want my freedom and I know you are incapable of rational thought because for you to see the gun in the room that is the state will simply cause you way too much cognitive dissonance and you simply reject the reality and cling on to your fantasy. It's human nature.
its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society. Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.
Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.
If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that. And Americans have always voted for such laws. In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour. In the US, the same guys would waste their lives away in jails. That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.
It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices. In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government. Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.
its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society. Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.
Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.
If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy. Where is this hell hole you are from?
Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states. Now please do reply about which you are from.
Oh the ignorance.
The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year.Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.
LeFevre believed there should be no state.
I don't care what he believed, it's a non sequitur that I have to in order to 100% agree with what he wrote at the link in the OP.
If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy. Where is this hell hole you are from?
Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states. Now please do reply about which you are from.
Oh the ignorance.
The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year.Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.
LeFevre believed there should be no state. That means no private property, no right to life and basically being at the mercy of those who do have states. Its not a good alternative to living in a democracy.
If you are unhappy about the US prison population, organise with like minded people and change it. Without wanting to sound nasty, its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society. Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.
If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy. Where is this hell hole you are from?
Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states. Now please do reply about which you are from.
Oh the ignorance.
The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year. Is that what you call protection?Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.
Are you saying we are not perfect? And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?
My car isn't perfect. On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.
I'm saying that our current societies are incredibly violent, but by social convention we all pretend not to see the violence and agree not to talk about it.My car isn't perfect. On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.
People who talk about the supposed horrors of a stateless society are engaging in psychological projection and are merely describing the features of the state system which are not politically correct to discuss openly.
Projection? You are making an assertion without offering any evidence for it. Facts please. Please point to a stateless society with a standard of living comparable to the UK, a murder rate comparable to the UK and a life expectancy comparable to the UK.
I notice you still haven't said what hell hole you are from. I'm curious to find out this place you live with its genocide and slavery.
Are you saying we are not perfect? And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?
My car isn't perfect. On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.
I'm saying that our current societies are incredibly violent, but by social convention we all pretend not to see the violence and agree not to talk about it.My car isn't perfect. On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.
People who talk about the supposed horrors of a stateless society are engaging in psychological projection and are merely describing the features of the state system which are not politically correct to discuss openly.
All states in EU, the US, Australia...
The people living in Iraq, owners and customers of Rawesome Foods, Michael Paxton, clients of MF Global, and Guantanamo detainees would disagree with your assertion, just to name a few.Are you saying we are not perfect? And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?
My car isn't perfect. On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.
Jump to: