How long would it take for Anarchy to start working? - page 20.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: Hawker on November 21, 2013, 06:19:10 PM

Quote from: westkybitcoins on November 21, 2013, 06:00:36 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 21, 2013, 03:46:06 PM

...snip...

Wait - you are happy to allow female genital mutilation, provided its not done to your daughter, and now you want to go all happy-clappy about believing in people?

If this is how your vision of anarchy "works" you'll find that people won't allow it. As I say, disgusting.

Wait, wait... one of your disagreements with anarchy is because under it, some people somewhere might be circumcising their daughters?

We already live in a world with practically everyone under the thumb of some government, and this already happens. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a government or two that mandated it.

How is anarchy worse in that regard?

Would you allow female genital mutilation?

That's not even a fair question.

Male "mutilation" goes on all around me. By not voting to prevent it, or using guns to stop every doctor who engages in it, I'm allowing it? I actually have an obligation to go out and prevent all crime outside of my personal sphere?

Now if the question was meant as, would I allow my female children to be circumcised, then the answer is no.

Quote

If not, how would you prevent it if the majority of people in your area have chosen a protection service that does allow it?

The same way I would now if I were living under a government that allowed or mandated it... effectively, I wouldn't. If I found it too egregious (and honestly I've found no compelling reason to look into the gory details of the activity) and couldn't persuade others to stop, I would simply have to move.

How is anarchy worse in that regard?

ErisDiscordia

legendary

Activity: 1133

Merit: 1163

Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos

Quote from: Hawker on November 22, 2013, 07:43:06 AM

Surely that is the problem with the whole concept of anarcky "working?" It forces your lack of morality on people who disagree with you.

I think we have found the most basic point in our disagreement: morality.

Quote from: Hawker on November 22, 2013, 09:13:59 AM

I am perfectly OK with the idea of an elected parliament deciding which moral standard to enforce.

Forgive me if I am making the wrong assumption here, but you seem to think that there can be one universal morality, which can and should be applied to everyone. I disagree with that notion.

I am arguing from a difficult standpoint, because to me "anarchy" has positive associations and "morality" has negative ones, whereas it seems to be the opposite way for most people. It's tough explaining why I think this is the case, without further delving into the 8 circuit model of consciousness I mentioned before.

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 09:16:38 AM

Who ever is going to enforce the laws in a stateless anarchic society if there is no universal consensus about what's right and what's wrong? Grin

Nobody! And that's the good thing about it

it is the responsibility of you and everyone else, who has strong opinions about what is right and wrong. It just seems a much effective way than the current delegation of this responsibility to agents of a monopolistic institution, which is prone to corrupting its agents anyway with the allure of money & power.

Ekaros

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 09:16:38 AM

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 09:07:27 AM

Who else is going to enforce the constitution?

Who ever is going to enforce the laws in a stateless anarchic society if there is no universal consensus about what's right and what's wrong? Grin

People can choose who they interact with. They can choose common mediator/security firm for their contracts... Etc...

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 09:07:27 AM

Who else is going to enforce the constitution?

Who ever is going to enforce the laws in a stateless anarchic society if there is no universal consensus about what's right and what's wrong? Grin

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 09:07:27 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 08:48:43 AM

As I can see you're desperately trying to get away with what makes your idea look not so bright as you would like. You forget to mention that there are other guys picking up in the marketplace and if my choice doesn't match theirs, I will have to resign myself to their choice, right? Grin

Like you have to pick the same ISP as everyone else?

Ultimately it makes no difference, it's all six of one and half a dozen of the other... Cool

And it may turn out that I don't want to pick any... Should I be deported, disenfranchised, euthanized or what? Grin

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ErisDiscordia on November 22, 2013, 07:34:08 AM

...snip...

Quote from: Hawker on November 22, 2013, 07:29:40 AM

If you believe it is immoral to cut a girl's clitoris off, then wittering on about "Her dad has his own protection force and they are OK with it" is bullshit. Either you enforce the moral standard or you support the damage done to the victim.

I sympathize with your conviction in moral ideals. But you see there is a problem with this approach, don't you? Who gets to decide which moral standard to enforce? It's quite easy for most people to agree on an issue like genital mutilation (but still it exists...), yet other issues are less clear. And don't forget: people are NOT trustworthy. How can we trust them to set and enforce the right moral standards, then? Seems to me, they'd be enforcing crooked standards - which seems to be going on today. I'd just argue that it's mostly because the system (environment) has corrupted the individuals occupying its seats of power, not because the people in the system are inherently crooked.

I realize I probably won't convince you of anything, there's no need to. I'm just typing out my thoughts. Maybe someone will enjoy them.

I am perfectly OK with the idea of an elected parliament deciding which moral standard to enforce. Its complicated choosing who to elect to make laws but the idea that you have to allow female genital mutilation because choosing law makers is complicated is absurd.

In case you are wondering, I do enjoy your thoughts. I very much doubt you believe its OK to allow female genital mutilation, bride burning or honour killings even in mainly Muslim areas where the private "protection force" would never intrude on a Muslim home.

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 08:48:43 AM

As I can see you're desperately trying to get away with what makes your idea look not so bright as you would like. You forget to mention that there are other guys picking up in the marketplace and if my choice doesn't match theirs, I will have to resign myself to their choice, right? Grin

Like you have to pick the same ISP as everyone else?

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 08:51:28 AM

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 08:27:14 AM

Are you sure that you know what anarchy is? It doesn't mean chaos.

I have already answered a question like this one. What you refer to as "anarchy" is correctly called a constitutional state... Grin

No. No government. Constitutional state requires a government as far as I know. Who else is going to enforce the constitution?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 08:38:41 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 08:34:07 AM

As with animals killing only for food, this premise is also false. The neocortex of dolphins and killer whales (which are, strictly speaking, also dolphins) is more developed than that of a human. Actually, they do communicate in a meaningful way with each other and show patterns of cooperative behaviour which are simply impossible on instinct

Seriously? Where are their advanced societies? Do they have underwater cities?

Orcas live in family groups which are considered the most stable of any animal species (and actually more stable than human families), where knowledge (hunting techniques, vocal behaviors) is specific for the family and passed across generations. They are nomads and like nomadic people they don't need cities... Cool

By the way, ants and termites do have "cities" Grin

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 08:27:14 AM

Are you sure that you know what anarchy is? It doesn't mean chaos.

I have already answered a question like this one. What you refer to as "anarchy" is correctly called a constitutional state... Grin

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 08:27:14 AM

No, it means I look out into the marketplace and I see law and security provider 1, law and security provider 2, etc. Just like I see ISP 1, ISP 2, etc. I then look at the deals that they offer and then how much it costs and make my choice based on that.

The difference, of course, between free market providers of law would be that they would not be my rulers, just as ISP companies don't rule me. They are trying to get my custom with the best possible deal they can offer me. I get to choose.

As I can see, you're desperately trying to get away with what makes your idea look not so bright as you would like. You forget to mention that there are other guys picking up in the marketplace and if my choice doesn't match theirs, I will have to resign myself to their choice, right? Grin

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

Quote from: bitlancr on November 22, 2013, 08:07:48 AM

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 07:48:09 AM

It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else. The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.

Sounds a lot like what's happening to western governments right now.

Right. They tax, borrow money, and print like crazy and they still struggle so I don't know how a private company could manage to do it.

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 08:34:07 AM

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 07:43:43 AM

I would say language sets us apart from the animals. Animals have no ability to communicate with each other in any meaningful way and so must act mostly on instinct to survive.

As with animals killing only for food, this premise is also false. The neocortex of dolphins and killer whales (which are, strictly speaking, also dolphins) is more developed than that of a human. Actually, they do communicate in a meaningful way with each other and show patterns of cooperative behaviour which are simply impossible on instinct

Seriously? Where are their advanced societies? Do they have underwater cities?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 07:43:43 AM

I would say language sets us apart from the animals. Animals have no ability to communicate with each other in any meaningful way and so must act mostly on instinct to survive.

As with animals killing only for food, this premise is also false. The neocortex of dolphins and killer whales (which are, strictly speaking, also dolphins) is more developed than that of a human. Actually, they do communicate in a meaningful way with each other and show patterns of cooperative behaviour which are simply impossible on instinct

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 07:59:46 AM

I still don't see much logic behind what you say. Ultimately it doesn't change anything from where you start and instead of one "law provider" you get by choice of majority another with brand new laws and some part of the population disagreeing with them... Cool

No, it means I look out into the marketplace and I see law and security provider 1, law and security provider 2, etc. Just like I see ISP 1, ISP 2, etc. I then look at the deals that they offer and then how much it costs and make my choice based on that.

The difference, of course, between free market providers of law would be that they would not be my rulers, just as ISP companies don't rule me. They are trying to get my custom with the best possible deal they can offer me. I get to choose.

Can you imagine what it would be like if there was only one ISP in the entire country? Do you think they would offer a good deal?

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 07:59:46 AM

What does this all have to do with anarchy? Grin

Are you sure that you know what anarchy is? It doesn't mean chaos.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: ErisDiscordia on November 22, 2013, 07:34:08 AM

Neither is forming social hierarchies, though - you can observe that sort of behavior in primates, packs of wolves, elephants.

I never said anything to the contrary. Actually, it was my argument against anarchy in another debate about it. In any hierarchical structure there are always those who subdue and those who are subdued. And no trace of anarchy, right? Grin

bitlancr

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 07:48:09 AM

It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else. The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.

Sounds a lot like what's happening to western governments right now.

P.S.
So most likley it will happen then.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: ErisDiscordia on November 22, 2013, 07:34:08 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 07:15:09 AM

Ok, there's no ruler, no universal laws anymore, and so why do you think there will be a new shiny set of rules everyone on the block agrees upon? People are different and even between two people you will get a disagreeing minority... Grin

I don't see this as a dualism. Like "universal set of rules means everything sucks" and "no universal set of rules means everything is great". What I am saying is that if you have lots of options to choose from, you're more likely to find one you like and agree with, compared to a situation where you have only one set of rules forced upon you.

There are options which cannot be given on an individual basis, so whatever you try (and say about it), there will all always majorities and minorities. You just can't make all people happy, some will always envy other... Grin

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 07:48:09 AM

You will have competing law providers in the same area of land. There is a high demand for security and law and order and many entrepreneurs will be willing to provide it. The reason they don't now, is because the government has a monopoly and forbids it. It does this because it's good to have a monopoly on the provision of force in a geographical area. Allows you to extort your victims. It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else. The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.

I still don't see much logic behind what you say. Ultimately it doesn't change anything from where you start and instead of one "law provider" you get by the choice of majority another with brand new laws and some part of the population disagreeing with them... Cool

What does this all have to do with anarchy? Grin

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 07:42:34 AM

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 07:29:33 AM

There is no universal law now. Where is the world ruler and his/their laws that we all have to follow?

We currently have competing law providers that we are "contracted" to. I use contract loosely of course, because there is no such thing.

Why should a law provider be bound to a certain patch of land and no other law providers be able to operate in the same territory? If we had competition we could make actually choices about what we deem to be good laws and if we don't think our provider is doing a good job, we can end the contract and pick another law provider, without having to go through the hassle of emigration.

I don't understand where you're going... Cool

According to your logic there should be no "law providers", otherwise at the end of the day you will get where you started at, i.e. you will have a new ruler and a new set of rules... Grin

I said there is no universal law. Already we have competing law providers (called governments) that are tied to particular areas of land.

You will have competing law providers in the same area of land. There is a high demand for security and law and order and many entrepreneurs will be willing to provide it. The reason they don't now, is because the government has a monopoly and forbids it. It does this because it's good to have a monopoly on the provision of force in a geographical area. Allows you to extort your victims. It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else. The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

I would say language sets us apart from the animals. Animals have no ability to communicate with each other in any meaningful way and so must act mostly on instinct to survive.

This is completely untrue with humans, where we discuss things, we arbitrate between people with disagreements, we make rules, etc. We are not in the same state of nature that other animals are in and it is incorrect for people to say, "oh, this is human nature". It's not. Most people have no interest in dominating others so how can it be human nature? It's like saying killing is human nature because some humans like to kill others. Or raping is human nature because some people like to rape. etc

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ErisDiscordia on November 22, 2013, 07:34:08 AM

...snip...

To be honest I don't come at this from a moral "what is right" perspective at all. Instead I tend to look at it from a pragmatic, process-oriented perspective. What is most likely to yield positive results? (yes, positive results is a moral value-judgement as well)

Surely that is the problem with the whole concept of anarcky "working?" It forces your lack of morality on people who disagree with you. And you have no right to do that do you? Mike Christ's position on female genital mutilation is that its fine provided its not done to his daughter. My position is that its an abomination. I see no reason to allow Mike's or anyone else's sunny indifference to human suffering to be the limit of what laws we make and enforce.

Topic: How long would it take for Anarchy to start working? - page 20. (Read 16391 times)