Topic: How long would it take for Anarchy to start working? - page 8. (Read 16391 times)

Please could you give more cogent reasons why you think that without moral standards we can't assess the efficiency or performance of the state?

People shouldn't be harmed not because it is immoral to harm them (I talk on behalf of the state here), but because this could render state less efficient in terms of some objective metrics. In short, the powers that be are interested that the governed wouldn't be harmed. It just happens that these things coincide here (though not accidentally) and this coincidence is often used to say that at least some moral principles are not alien to state. This is false

On the whole, I agree with your idea, something along these lines has likely already been taking place. But there are functions which simply can't be privatized or demonopolized, since duplicating some public institutions would be equal to creating another state inside or alongside the original one (that's what mafias are permanently trying to do). I think that would wreak havoc as it happens when organized crime is able to snatch some power from the state. In short, power demonopolized is no longer power, so what you say in essence amounts to abolishing the state...

Now I see your point. Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government (as you confirm yourself). Though it's still beyond my understanding how there could possibly be more than one government at the same time in the same area. If this is not what you actually mean here, aren't elections what would go for "picking a competing ISP"?

It's not necessarily about dismantling the state.

The state, as it currently exists, provides certain services, principally protection.  All we are saying is that for all of those services, people should be able to either continue to use the state or use other services that people provide in the market and not have to pay the state.   That then allows people like yourself who want the state to continue to pay for it, and people like me who don't want the state to use other services instead.  

The equivalent is going from a telephone monopoly which existed in most countries initially, to the current situation where you have a choice of providers.   People who want to continue to use the initial government telephone service can continue to do so.

Protection is just another service offered by the market.  There is no reason it should be a monopoly any more than money should be a monopoly within any given territory.

One thing I woiuld propose is instead of having general taxes, they should be individually itemised.  You are paying a certain amount for the police service, a certain amount for water etc.  Then people can choose which taxes they want to pay.  Which services they want.  And competitors should be allowed to offer alternatives.   Of course, were this to happen, government services would have to improve markedly to compete.  Unlike the current situation where they have a monopoly and don't really have to worry about their customers all that much.

But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually?

Okay, what metric shall we use for effectiveness?  I would say we should use freedom/liberty as our metric.  That again gives us anarchy, succeeding at 100%.

The selection of the metric that you're going to use to measure "effectiveness" is going to be, inherently, a moral issue.

I would like to allow an arbitrary number of governments in my area, but this is illegal.  If anyone attempts it, they will face coercion (government force).  As someone else mentioned, this should be just as legal as picking a competing ISP.

That's what I mean by compelling people to just have one government.  If they try to start another, they will be forcibly put down as a "rebellion."  And 99% of the population seems to think that this is good and ethical.  But clearly this is the exact opposite of freedom.

without moral standards you have no criteria by which to judge what is and is not effective. should a government protect people from harm? if so than arnt you making the claim that people shouldnt be harmed? if so than why shouldnt people be harmed?

Though this may look very true, I wouldn't take this logic as definitive. Actually, there are many other ways you can instill your political views or philosophies onto your opponent (this thread can be a good example of this), even without sticking to force, if this was your point...

Moving is not immoral, but when people want to secede, telling them they shouldn't be allowed that option because moving is good enough is wrong.

Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts.  In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...

That part about not supporting the use of force I understood pretty well (and likely would agree to it). I didn't get what had been meant by (not) compelling people to have just one government in an area. They usually already have just one government in the area, why then should we compel them to in the first place? What did I get wrong here?

Ethics, i.e. moral philosophy, is a rather big subject; there are many concepts within it, but if you don't understand it naturally, you'd probably respond better to an argument of practicality, as ErisDiscordia pointed out.

Anyway see here if you're interested; Walter's pointing out that, if you do not want someone else to force their political philosophy onto you, you shouldn't do the same; to do to others what you would not want to happen to you is immoral, for it is inconsistent and requires one group of people (even if it's just you) to have special rights over another, i.e. the state in microscopic view.

Another point that I don't quite understand. You seem to erroneously assign me as the true culprit here whereas, actually, it was exactly my alternative of moving to another country in the first place that was torn to pieces and thrown out of the window. May I hope for a bit of objectivity here? Is it immoral too or what?

I didn't get the emboldened part. Please explain

Also, I don't think we can apply ethical categories (such as being moral or immoral) to governments or states. It is proper as well as better, in my opinion, to rather judge them on the effectiveness and expedience scales. Mafia which has territory and can force everyone within it to pay protection money is called, yes, state...

The point is that you and I should not support the use of force to compel people to have just one government in an area.  It's as immoral for governments to claim a monopoly in an area over defense and law and order as it is for the mafia to have territory and force everyone within it to pay protection money.

When your neighbor says he wants to secede, you shouldn't be among the ones opposing him.  Nor should you reply by saying it is impractical.  He has that right, and it should be respected.  Nor should you reply by telling him he'll have to move.  That's just wrong - he and everybody else should have the right to secede, collaborate together to form new governments (rights-protecting institutions), or whatever they want, as long as they are not violating anyone else's rights.


The problem with your alternative is that it's immoral to make that the only choice.

I talk about what already works now if you are not happy with the state you happen to live in. You, instead, are trying to sell a pig in a poke, something which is simply not here today and probably will never be. No one urges you to go into an uncertain situation or whatever. Such things are usually very well prepared for before taking the actual step. And nowadays it is much easier to do, provided you are actually into it...

Though I didn't expect that you would like this alternative, which was pretty clear right from the start

I disagree that the unwilling and incapable see the state as their meal ticket. The majority of nations in the world have no or very limited welfare systems.

On the other hand the majority of nations in the world support the economic elite and keep the divide between rich and poor as large as possible. The "elite" certainly see the state as their meal ticket.

I would hope that hearts and minds would work but as long as anarchists are branded as mask wearing extremists trying to undermine "the system" then one person in a life time might be a realistic goal.

If you want anarchy, take away the rich nations', tv, newspaper, internet once you've removed the media you´ll remove apathy and the poor will wake up to how shit their lives really are and start doing something about it.

There is also the problem that WE anarchists have a tendency to distance ourselves with the political process as it serves a system that we don't agree with. A few more of us need to exploit the system and participate in what THEY call democracy and try to instigate change from within.


 

You talk about particulars whereas I talk about the whole picture. We shouldn't take some single cases, we should look, before all, at the average level. The globalization right now moves masses of people around the globe, just take a look at the number of foreigners in Europe...
 

So this in effect would mean that you couldn't actually go anywhere...

You hit the nail on the head. Those unwilling or incapable of looking after themselves will never embrace or even understand Anarchism because they basically see the state as their meal ticket.

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his survival depends upon his not understanding it. That's why hardcore statists are constantly pushing food stamps, obama phones, and other free goodies. They want you dependent.

How to bring about Anarchism? First, you need to get yourself self sufficient. Once you achieve self sufficiency in the areas of food, shelter, transportation and defence, help others do the same. Share information and ideas, things like Bitcoin for example. If enough people do that, my hope is that the state will gradually and naturally begin to fade away. The main idea is to get people self sufficient and off of food stamps.

But in my experience, the best way to turn around a liberal is to take them to a shooting range. Not only is learning self defence fun, but it plants a seed of doubt in their mind and naturally gets them to question necessity of the state.

That's how I see it being done: winning over hearts and minds, one person at a time.