Pages:
Author

Topic: How long would it take for Anarchy to start working? - page 6. (Read 16377 times)

legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
Have you a concrete idea how what private services you would use to prevent animal cruelty?

If you have to ask this, you're not getting the point of "personal responsibility". YOU are the private service that prevents animal cruelty. Any questions?

So you would like the enforcement of animal cruelty rules handled by a vigilante service?

The problem with vigilante services is that they often result in people being killed under dubious circumstances.  We had a man beaten to death for paedophilia here in the UK recently who it turned out was just unpopular with his neighbours. 

Your idea would mean that if I think someone is being cruel to an animal, I get a weapon, force entry to his home and then make a decision as to what punishment is appropriate.  Since I would have him at the end of a gun, you can see the potential for problems.

I can't see that as being more convenient than calling the police.

legendary
Activity: 1133
Merit: 1163
Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos
Have you a concrete idea how what private services you would use to prevent animal cruelty?

If you have to ask this, you're not getting the point of "personal responsibility". YOU are the private service that prevents animal cruelty. Any questions?
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
Walter, I must keep my eye on you. You may be of help, later.

My belief is that we  must make anarchy, by making government services not as convenient as private services. In same way that file sharing made music and movie services more convenient than government-sanctioned legal services, despite file sharing being illegal. We need tools to replace government, and must make them work in a way that makes them impossible to destroy by governments (make them decentralized like bitcoin), and make it easy for people to use anonymously. In short, the only way to compete with government monopoly and make it go away is to create powerful tools that make the gray market much easier for businesses and people to work in.

Have you a concrete idea how what private services you would use to prevent animal cruelty?
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Walter, I must keep my eye on you. You may be of help, later.

My belief is that we  must make anarchy, by making government services not as convenient as private services. In same way that file sharing made music and movie services more convenient than government-sanctioned legal services, despite file sharing being illegal. We need tools to replace government, and must make them work in a way that makes them impossible to destroy by governments (make them decentralized like bitcoin), and make it easy for people to use anonymously. In short, the only way to compete with government monopoly and make it go away is to create powerful tools that make the gray market much easier for businesses and people to work in.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
...snip...

Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it.

Someone could be wrong.  Rights are legal creations that reflect the moral judgement of society.  If a society deems animal abuse or female genital mutilation wrong, there is no point talking about "rights" to private property or to family privacy.  The behaviour society deems unacceptable will be punished.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property.  So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people?

No - it's just me insisting other people should not impose their morality on me or on anyone else.  That's all.

Quote
For example I am opposed to animal cruelty.  Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted?  What gives you the right to dictate that?

By all means prosecute them.  I support their right to defend themselves from you.

They don't have a right to defend themselves.  Rights are legal creations and no-one has created a right to abuse animals.
legendary
Activity: 1133
Merit: 1163
Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos
Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area  Smiley

Very good insight.

(I would even go so far as to say that government is a religion.  It expects a lot of blind faith.  I simply don't share the beliefs others have in the efficacy of government (as we know it) and want them to stop imposing their religion (state) on me, even though they think it's just "culture" or whatever.)

Yes of course it is a religion! Why do you think the Communists were so violently anti-religion? They, like all monotheistic religions, simply can't stand competition by definition.

The Cosmic Grandfather of Christianity has been replaced by the Big Brother of the government. A deity much more fitting for the materialistic age, it seems much more "real" and tangible, even to the point that people forget it is a myth. Big Brother is an even more vicious deity than the Cosmic Grandfather, because where the latter would threaten you with eternal damnation after death and demanded about one tenth of your income, Big Brother routinely takes over half of your income and makes your life living hell while you're still on earth! Of course, the omnipotence and benevolence of both of them has to be taken on faith alone, as has to be the claim, that without them, life, creation, order and all that is good, could simply not exist. To deny this is blasphemy and courts punishment from above and ostracism from all around. Better be careful! You might get burned at the stake, or thrown behind bars for not having the right morals.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm
What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?

It's not about having a few governments.  It's saying people like you can have rulers if that's what you want.

The rest of us say that we want competing service providers to provide those services that the government currently claims a monopoly over, because we don't want rulers.

I am in for the only true Anarchy. Actually, any stateless society pretending to be an anarchy but forbidding implicitly or explicitly the true Anarchy would be nothing more than a fake, a state in disguise...

Ah - true Scotsman anarchy!
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property.  So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people?  For example I am opposed to animal cruelty.  Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted?  What gives you the right to dictate that?

Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you?

Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it.

Either people have more rights to their property than you do, or everybody has a claim to their property and a say in how it is to be used.

If everybody has a claim to property, then nobody has more claim than the owner, and thus no justification for overriding the owner's beliefs about how the property should be used.

If anybody has a right to control property, it's the person who has gone through the process of acquiring ownership.  Otherwise, nobody has that right.

Neither possibility justifies the state.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm
Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area  Smiley

Very good insight.

(I would even go so far as to say that government is a religion.  It expects a lot of blind faith.  I simply don't share the beliefs others have in the efficacy of government (as we know it) and want them to stop imposing their religion (state) on me, even though they think it's just "culture" or whatever.)
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm
Under these circumstances, telling me that I should "keep your hands off of that which isn't yours" is imposing your morality on me.

The alternative is you imposing your morality.  Since you're okay with that, you should have no objection to other people "imposing their morality" by telling you to butt out.  In your view, they are just as justified as you and you have no way to justify imposing yourself.  In their view, you are clearly in the wrong, and you still have no way to justify imposing yourself.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property.  So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people?

No - it's just me insisting other people should not impose their morality on me or on anyone else.  That's all.

Quote
For example I am opposed to animal cruelty.  Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted?  What gives you the right to dictate that?

By all means prosecute them.  I support their right to defend themselves from you.
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?

It's not about having a few governments.  It's saying people like you can have rulers if that's what you want.

The rest of us say that we want competing service providers to provide those services that the government currently claims a monopoly over, because we don't want rulers.

I am in for the only true Anarchy. Actually, any stateless society pretending to be an anarchy but forbidding implicitly or explicitly the true Anarchy would be nothing more than a fake, a state in disguise...
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
...
You can pay for these people and all their cronyism and overseas trips and bailing out their friends etc etc since you are eager to have rulers.  And that's fine.  Me?   I'll pass.

Well no, you won't.
Cronyism, overseas trips, bailouts -- this stuff is replicated as soon as it's torn down.
Case in point:  Ukyo, of WeExchange fame, is flown to Cyprus and bailed out by his crony Danny, the CEO of Neo & Bee.
One sentence covers all the events you dislike so much.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 253
Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area  Smiley

What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?


It's not about having a few governments.  It's saying people like you can have rulers if that's what you want.

The rest of us say that we want competing service providers to provide those services that the government currently claims a monopoly over, because we don't want rulers.

I probably wasn't clear in my posts, but that boiled down is what I mean.

You can pay for these people and all their cronyism and overseas trips and bailing out their friends etc etc since you are eager to have rulers.  And that's fine.  Me?   I'll pass.

You can choose to be a slave if you wish in a free society.
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area  Smiley

What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property.  So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people?  For example I am opposed to animal cruelty.  Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted?  What gives you the right to dictate that?

Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you?

Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it.
legendary
Activity: 1133
Merit: 1163
Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos
Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property.  So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people?  For example I am opposed to animal cruelty.  Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted?  What gives you the right to dictate that?

Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you?

I am opposed to animal cruelty.  I don't care who owns the beast being mistreated and I don't care that no humans are harmed - I want the abusers arrested and prosecuted.   

Under these circumstances, telling me that I should "keep your hands off of that which isn't yours" is imposing your morality on me. 
member
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
So yes - I am all for imposing morality.
Well that says it all. You're one of those people who feel entitled to impose your will upon and take what you'd wish from others by force.
Pages:
Jump to: