Topic: How long would it take for Anarchy to start working? - page 3. (Read 16377 times)

Right. Now they just kill without courts or sentences. It is all just accidents caused by poisons or radiation.

As a side note, there is no death penalty in Russia since 1996 when was established a moratorium in application of the death penalty (and thereby no death sentences). So the last person to be executed in Russia was some serial killer who was shot on 2 August 1996, and this moratorium is still in effect...

Courts are not democratic. They are supposed to be specifically not democratic, because their function is to be ethical and just, not decide for what majority wants.

As for Apple and contract argument, you claim that reputation based trade without government enforced contracts can not work (if you were to make one) is provably false, by fact that such contracts are done by transnational corporations between suppliers in different countries, and corporations that do not have home countries, who have no country law to depend on for contracts. Apple gets its products from Taiwan, Japan, America, and China, and if any of suppliers broke their contract, Apple can not take them to court, especially in China, because Apple is not from those countries and will likely lose in court. But such large supplier companies depend on good reputation to continue to do business. In business, reputation is everything, regardless of what you might believe.

No it does not. It just has to offer something more ethical and more just. And besides, it is very easy to offer something better than what we have now.



I admitted it may have been too harsh, but it is not out of realm of what may be possible in future. Not because it will be legal or allowable, but because it will simply be possible.


You live in sheltered world if you believe that is what requires death sentence. From what I hear, Texas is very happy to make death sentences with little review, and are proud of it. That may be true in Florida, too. America is very quick to give death sentence without jury to those living in middle east and north Africa. China and other totalitarian countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are much happy to give death sentences without trials, and even democratic Russia is known to give death sentences that are not just. Also, supposedly 90% of accusations end up never going into court, and get settled because of threats of much harsher sentences. Even if not death sentence, many people in current "better" system have many years of their life stolen from them as they spend it in jails. I do not think it is very difficult to come up with better system, and at worst, we will just just as horrible system as we have now.


That is happy fairy tale that is not true, and maybe never was, simply because this rule is not given evenly to everyone. If state thinks you are really bad, they will just ignore this rule, and you know it.

That is what I support and wish to build, too, yes. People are social animals. They can not live completely independently, and will form communities with personal beliefs and cultures. I see no problem with such idea, and do not think it conflicts with anarcho-capitalism. In fact, I think it would be good for such groups to compete against each other in producing best educated children, most skilled workers, and best products.

Its unfortunate that you are delaying making an argument that reputation based trade could work.  Forget your little leaps - make your case in 1 go please :-)

Ok so its really unfortunate that you are forcing this debate down from the level of government vs anarchy into whether contracts can be enforced by means other than law and now down EVEN further into epistemology and the fundamental characteristics of logical abstraction and how they apply to the art of argumentation. But I'm willing to go where the debate takes me. So im going to try to make this as mechanical as possible with the shortest leaps possible in each step but i need you to work with me. I cant have you debating arguments that i havnt made yet. Once i say something fallacious then point that out but please dont bother telling me about some mistake that im going to make in the future but havnt made yet. Unless you have supernatural abilities, in which case we should talk about that instead.

I dont know what you mean by "some guys would do that" the contract is that if Allice sends Apple X amount of dollars, than apple promises to send allice an iphone. what does "some guys" have to do with this?

As long as it takes until people learn how to look after themselves.

Actually it is relevant.  You are trying to frame an argument and you want to use a state created entity called a company that has a state created value called Intellectual Property in its brand and then transfer the benefits of that to a non-state situation where there can't be companies and where there can't be brands.

So, take the word "Apple" out and we are in business.  If the question you ask is whether a fictional person would walk away from contracts if it decided it was more profitable to rip off customers than to provided the contracted service and if there was no way to enforce contracts.

Answer: yes.  Some guys would do that.  

Just think how bad mobile networks and other radio networks would be without regulation?

The strongest transmitter would win, and usefulness of the system would likely be very low...

Wifi would also be interesting, just think about the microwave ovens without proper protections, wreaking havoc to data transmissions...

In some cases forcing regulation and standards is beneficial.

I'm not sure if it ever could start working..

This is COMPLETELY irrelevant for the point that I'm trying to make. Now please, answer the question.

Apple would not exist without contract law.  It would not have phones to sell without contract law.   Neither would any other company as they a legal creations based on state support.  Reasonable intelligent people can disagree - it would be nice if you made an argument rather than ask me to indulge in crazy hypotheticals.

its true that state contract enforcement is available to large corporations and the clinically insane. its true that apple was built upon a foundation of such contract enforcement. i agree with all of this but i dont think its relevant to the question, and the underlying principal that I'm trying to hit at here.

I'm asking something very specific. Suppose you personally contract with apple. The contract stipulates that if you send apple X number of dollars, they promise to send you an iphone in return. Further suppose that you and apple both recieve a letter from the government stating that they refuse to enforce this particular contract. Do you think it is likely that apple would violate this contract?

Hmmm.  

I want to agree with you but I can't.  If contracts were not enforceable, Apple would not exist.  Since its products are mainly commercial applications of government developments and since its a company that lives on litigation, the idea is so hypothetical as to be impossible to imagine.  It just could not happen.

EDIT: what I am saying is that a company like apple could not exist without the huge state support of patents, contract law, cheap government loans and taxpayer funded research that made it possible.  Its just inconceivable that the other essential examples would exist without a contract law. 

For normal companies, even with the law being enforceable, litigation is essential.  Intelligent reasonable people disagree.  Courts and laws are a response to that fact. 

Even if our lives are in many respects better than they could have been in the past, that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways to improve them further.

2013 has been probably the best year in human history.  Life has never been better for a greater number of people.  Stop being such a fool and look at how good life is.

These are the 2 options that were possible in our history. The self-sufficient human in the community or the ruled citizen as an enslaved cartoon of a human within hypercollectives which grow rampant until they collapse. Your choice.

Probably some of them would come here and clarify on that point themselves, but the main difference as I see it is that people in those anarchists' incarnation of anarchy would willingly choose to impose on themselves a sort of a law system and strictly abide by the set rules. The problem with such society, in my opinion, is that it would always be divided into majority and minority. And as one of the proponents said, the minority would have to either adjust themselves somehow or "go away"...

To me, this kind of anarchy is not much different from what state does. If you disagree with the law, you either run away or go to jail