Topic: Justice Under Anarchy (Read 21518 times)

I liked the Op care in trying to justify every coercive measure, but:
He is admitting that recalcitrant criminals would have to be locked up.
Court sentences (of reparation or imprisonment) would have to be enforced.
It would have to exist a repressive system of courts, police enforcers and prisons. I don't see much difference, beside the endorsement of proposals of privatization of those systems and making people pay for security and justice when they needed them, like the ones from Nozick, with the goal of abolishing taxes.
Besides, if the criminal didn't have money to pay for his judgement and incarceration (most don't), the system would work at a deficit or we would end at a system of vendetta, with all their escalating consequences and abusive self-decisions on the merits of our own cause (we excel at that). That is precisely the system it took thousand of years to overcome. In archaic roman times, the creditor could lock up the debtor on his own private jail until he or his family paid the debt.
Or it would be necessary to support this repressive system on taxes and have him controlled by the community and we would end up just where we are

yes it is true no system is perfect but think give a very good understanding of anarchy
http://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman-21

There is a song of Rabibdranath Tagore "Amra sobai raja amader rajar rajotte"  means we r all kings in our kingdom

Indeed, we should try to "trim the fat" as often as possible. 

I would defend others not because I felt a responsibility to do so, but because I respect life.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation. I think we agree in many places and have a few key differences.

Do I think morals and rights exists? Yes.

Do I think the universe mandate morals and rights? No. It doesn't care.

We human beings create morals, rights, and ethic. Our morals and conception of ethic originated from our evolutionary origin and evolve through culture. There's a reason we evolved this way, but sometime moral concepts become obsolete in our current environment.

Take the idea of egalitarianism and fairness. These concepts does more harm than good. Thanks to our collective education, we realize that price-gouging is actually economically beneficial.

Which leaves the system open to tyranny of the majority, such as when the majority voted to allow ownership of black people.


According to me, you can't. According to you, you can. What are you looking for, some sort of infallible source of laws?


I'm not encouraging the commitment of a crime.


I think my life is my property. I can give it away, sell it or be forced to forfeit it by taking another person's life.


No.


No, voluntary manslaughter is not the same as murder.



No, it's not a good thing.


It was inspired by the "It's because of crazy people like this..." thread. It's only meant to explain that justice could exist under anarchy.

At first I was arguing that there's no need for the widespread belief in the non-aggression principle, rules, morals and rights for the stability of an anarchic society. Common sense would do just fine as a self regulatory mechanism.

I don't know if they exist or not, that question is too deep down in the philosophical abyss for me, so I just say that I don't subscribe to them.


It wouldn't be wrong since I don't recognize right and wrong.


Yeah, I favor the law of the jungle. It kinda makes my position look stupid since government gets away with "might makes right" every day so I'm sort of legitimazing it. The difference though is that in my ideal society the individual is empowered instead of the group and is extremely hostile towards a rising powerful group. Basically whenever a powerful group forms and tries to impose their will on others, a bigger group would form from people that are feeling threatened solely to dissolve the first group. If everyone reasoned like this then society would be completely stable since everyone would strive to equalize their power with the rest to avoid becoming a target.


I guess. If I'm powerless I'm screwed either way, no matter what kind of society we live in. Right now if the government decided that I'm a terrorist and locked me up for life, and everyone agreed, then what can be done? The powerful decided what's right and what's wrong for me. Same thing could happen in a non-aggression, right-to-life kind of society.


I would defend your daughter, but again, not because I felt responsibility to do so, but because I'm sensitive to child abuse so I would feel like shit for a long time if I didn't do anything. On the other hand, if I saw a beggar getting stabbed by 5 guys I would probably not defend him because the risk of getting owned myself is high and so it wouldn't be worthwhile saving someone I don't really care about.

I am a firm believer in democracy. So I don't think your way of "I decide which rules to follow" is a good way. Rules are set by a majority, and followed by all.

So can I or can't I defend my intellectual property against your agression? I think it's valid, you don't.


From your example above it did sound like your intention was to let criminals know that my house was unprotected. How is that not inciting crime?


Ignoring that self defence could still be murder where I'm at, I have a problem with the "a life you own" bit. I don't agree that you can own anyone. And while killing in self defence sometimes is justifiable, killing someone for revenge would still be murder. The end result would be the same. One dead body and a lot of people suffering for it.

Agreed. It's not proportional. Can the rapists family kill me now?
What if I get into a barfight and pushes someone away who is bothering me. He falls over and hits his head, and dies from head trauma. His family can kill me now?
I don't agree that they now own my life and can kill me. Do you?


Ah? Then we agree again. I also think that valid contracts should be upheld. Good thing we have laws that govern what can be put in a contract, right? 

If you're not interested in converting anyone, why did you write the "Justice Under Anarchy" post?

It seems you can't make up your mind whether it's just you that gets to make the rules or you and a bunch of people that agree with you.


That wouldn't be legitimate in my view.


It's not inciting crime to make sure everyone knows that you aren't being provided services by my company.


It's not murder if you take a life you own or kill someone in self-defense. Just like it's not destruction of property to smash up my own stereo. Under my previous example, if you kill someone and hand them back the check that means it still wasn't right, otherwise you wouldn't have had to pay back the money. You could murder and not have to pay restitution. In that sense, no, murder is still wrong.


That wouldn't be responding in a proportional manner. You don't kill a 5 year old for trespassing because she steps on your lawn to get her ball back.


I held that valid contracts should be upheld. Picking up the hand of a comatose person, putting a pen in it and waving it around on a piece of paper to spell out their name isn't a valid contract. The same goes for all other non-fully rational people. I haven't changed my position at all. You're simply misrepresenting it.


I'm not interested in converting you or anyone else. I'm simply defending anarchism against straw men.

Initiation of violence is wrong. Once someone initiates violence against another, they accept it to be used against them.

So if you recognize that people live in packs/societies and would defend each other and that you would not want to experience violence yourself, what is this argument about again?

So, your self-interests are to protect those lives that you value. But you are not always there to protect those lives that you value. Do you believe in morals?

Would it be wrong for someone to take the life of one of those that you would defend? I have to assume your answer is no (since you don't believe in rights).

So, those with the power to protect themselves against retaliation can do as they please? Basically might makes right? Although you won't call it right. Might makes it so?

If someone wants to kill a person on your list, and you can't stop them, and no one else cares to stop them, we simply chalk that up as chaos?

I think we (humans) have a rational mind to make rational decisions that we can then base our beliefs on. I want to live, and I would rationally assume others want to live as well. In your case, I don't need to assume, you've told me you will defend your life. So this is the foundation of what I would call rights. Since people want to live, it makes sense to defend life from those that would take it at their discretion. If my daughter was in danger, and you could end that danger, I would hope that you do. I would certainly protect your daughter (or you for that matter) from someone who is putting you in danger, if I was capable of doing so.

So, I would argue that it is in your self-interest to defend the lives of like minded people, because those people would defend the lives that are in your self-interest to defend, when you aren't there to defend them. Who are the like minded people? People that believe in a right to life (and non-aggression)!

Because a majority of us believes this to be the case, and we set the rules.

So I'll just have to define you to be the agressor and then I can defend myself against it?
I know you don't agree with Intellectual Property, but if you take some of my work then I'll just declare you to be the agressor against my IP and "defend" myself against that, no matter that you don't agree that there is such a thing as IP? I can do that?

Sort of a "Nice house you got there, shame if something were to happen to it" kind of deal? Inciting crime wouldn't be a crime in your world? Unless I declared that a form of agression against my property and defended myself against it?

Yes, that's the gang mentality that I have a problem with. If murder is wrong, how can murder be right? I have no problem removing a violent individual from society for protecting it, but "an eye for an eye" should have been discarded a long time ago. I also think that in the interest of justice, a person who isn't violent but has commited murder should be locked up for some time as punishment for his crime, as a "restitution" for the victims family.
Say that I find out that someone raped my child. I don't catch him in the act, I find out sometime later. I then find and kill the rapist. It's clearly not defence, and I pose no threat to society other than to those who abuse my children. Should the rapists family be allowed to kill me? I don't think so. I do think I should spend a long time in jail though.


In another thread you were adamant that contracts should be upheld, no matter what. I'm glad to see that you've started to see gray-scales. That was the point of the "shotgun blast".

If you're saying "Hey, look at this, this system is MUCH better, let's use this system instead!" then you will have to be the one with the explanations. We already have a system that works so well that it's in use all over the world. If anarchism is better, then explain it so well that I'd like to switch to that system. If you live in a democracy then form a party with the goal of dismantling the state and spread the gospel. If it's so great you'll have no problem. The market decides, right? Let the market, in this case voters, decide.

I would defend any life that is in my self-interest to defend. Some examples: I would defend myself for self-preservation, I would defend my daughter's life because she is my favorite person, and my dog's life because she is my second favorite person. I would defend my neighbors life because that would mean that they might do the same for me and we have a higher chance of survival if we help each other. I would defend Gavin Andresen's life because I want bitcoin development to continue smoothly. Finally I would defend Quentin Tarantino's life just because I really like his movies and would feel like I owe him that much.

OK. So, you would defend your life only for the reason of self-preservation?

Are there other lives you would defend, and if so, for what reason?

Would you defend another life if the loss of that life was no threat to you?

Of course not. I'm just trying to understand. I'm going to think for a bit.

No, but I don't value yours.

Not sure what you are getting at though, are you saying I would have a duty to avenge your life?

So you only value your own life?

More like a non-answer since some of us don't believe in rights. If you got killed I would not retaliate just because you were denied of your "right", but because it is in my self interest to to take out the killer as he is a threat to me.