Topic: Competing police forces/laws - page 2. (Read 2281 times)

How does the rich control the poor without force?  If there's no centralized bank destorying the poor's currency, or tax system stealing all their wealth, or welfare system keeping them dependent, or minimum wage destroying employment, or regulations denying any opportunities, what's to stop the poor from rising up?

Like with insurance, fear is quenched by spending more money on protection.   Unlike the current system, you get to decide how much protection you think is necessary in an anarchist society.  

The state is essentially the most ruthless and powerful gang around but is "limited" by a piece of paper which they can choose to obey or ignore.  The majority of people do not get what they want by using violence.  Businesses don't threaten other businesses with their own personal armies if they're not satisfied.  You don't threaten your employer with violence to get a raise.  Organized aggressive violence only happens under a power-hungry and empathy-lacking sociopath, which must build their army with funds that are taken by force.  Imagine what kind of military Bush would've had if he had gone door to door raising funds for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

A great rebuttal to this would be how locals in "anarchic" Somalia invest in weapons which the pirates use to sieze trade ships.  I read that a woman invested an RPG into a pirate operation and got $75,000 in return after the heist.  In reality, it is the government which makes these investments worthy since trade ships are not allowed to bring weapons to port, and this incentivizes these operations.  In a stateless society the sailors would be free to defend themselves from such small pirate groups, and thus they would never try.

I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.

Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents  'police force' is even aware there is a problem.


Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.

Where? And if someone comes and take that land?

You can grow your own food and don't need others to do that for you.

Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat...

What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years?

In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there...

People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.

Yes, conflicts end when "those who decide" can no longer gather support. When too many people died; when costs did not justify cause, population will get tired, leaving grudge but no physical conflict. Hence, no true peace.

The way I see it, conflict always will be too costly.  But as long as the money is coerced out of people, that won't matter.  War will happen if it the people who take the money say it will.

Conflicts only end when they become too costly compared to gains to those who decide... This can be seen very well in current world situation...

True peace isn't here until we conflicts are too costly compared to any gains...

The incentive to fight only exists when the funds to do so are forcibly taken from the populace.  The violent method of obtaining something is never the most efficient method.  For example, why don't the citizens of Maryland pile all of their money together to create an army to sieze the oil fields in North Dakota from the corporations that own them?  For the reason that it's much cheaper and more sensible to use their own resources to trade for the oil, much more than the threat of the military/police force that would try to stop them.

Similar to the medieval feudal system. There will be battles between forces when competing for natural resources until the population got tired of conflicts. Peace for a short period and then history repeats itself.

Right, but they can't afford to protect you from a majority. More likely, they'll just tell you that you have to accept what that majority wants until they change their mind.

In any system that considers homosexual marriage comparable to murder, homosexual marriage will wind up effectively prohibited if murder is. In any system that considers homosexual marriage a fundamental right, homosexual marriage will be protected if rights are protected at all.

So if you want to get something recognized as a fundamental right and protected, what matters is that you convince a majority of people, weighted by how much power the system gives them, that they should be. The system really only matters in two respects:

1) The system decides who or what you have to convince because it determines how rules are made and enforced.

2) The system decides what avenues will be available to you as you do the convincing.

But otherwise, if the majority of force wielders want something, it will happen. If the majority of force wielders are willing to prevent something, it will not, or at least it will be retaliated against.

Hence why you hire police to protect you from kidnapping.

You tell them your keys or they put you in jail until you do.
http://blog.zwillgen.com/2012/01/26/no-fifth-amendment-violation-for-compelled-disclosure-of-password/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
absence of government

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
complete confusion and disorder : a state in which behavior and events are not controlled by anything

The latter definition applies to the status quo.

Anarchy is not synonymous to chaos.

What are you trying to say? Anarchy is chaos, and the status quo isn't chaos.

The only law we need is the law of karma.  What you emit comes back to you, all your actions have a reaction and you feel each and every one.

If people really understood this, we would not have people racing to gain the most wealth but rather to gain the most inner peace, for that is the most valuable thing in life.

Anarchy forces an order and society to be built
Utopia is only as determined as the mindset
Given a charismatic leader in this scenario we could see dictatorships ruler-ships or a just society built
The question is what bias do they have originally entering into this experiment and whether they can over come those instincts together as a society

Then again this is the social covenant and their is only the island can't assume the geography so not sure if their is a mountain or if a Moat is possible to guard your house even when your away,  and the time it takes to build these fortifications before getting assaulted by others what the tech level and knowledge levels are as well are interesting variables as they could impact they fortifications security and design.
Left handed entrances so you can fight with your right hand maze type designs to get to your house with traps to dissuade visitors
All on an island of course ^^

Need more input to make a rational decision
In your case for all I know the gays are evil or the gays are good is it Roman based ideal or is it Puritan based

Either way couple of ideas
Isolationism
Protectionism
Or Mutual Reliance will occur
A fourth case can be made that one group will kill off the other group till hegemony is made so these type of issues are non-existent or the island is split into two as well with one group on one side and the other controlling that part with a strong border
Assuming resources to be the same else scenario 1 occurs

Actually, in such a scenario the rich would be a target of the police forces of the poor. While it may not be financially beneficial to get into gun fights with your neighbor over an acre of land, and thus an agreement would need to be made. The rich would need to hire much better police forces because it is financially beneficial for the poor police forces to bind together to take land from the rich (assuming such land is the source of the riches, or even contains wealth that can be taken). The rich would be obligated to pay more for police protection.