Topic: We do live in an anarchist world - page 2. (Read 2276 times)

In my short time of having a driver's license, I've accumulated 500$ worth of fines for one simple crime: invalid inspection.  However, because I really don't have any money to fix whatever is wrong with my car (been working on it for 2-3 years and I still can't figure out why the stupid light won't turn off), I wind up putting up with a pointless law and dodging police, despite my car running in fine shape.  I've considered circumventing the law by getting a fake inspection sticker but have yet to find a guy who'll do it for me, so it gets to the point where I try not to go out after the sun rises, and coming home is no big deal during rush hour since cops can't weed through that kind of traffic or even spot me.

Anyway, back on the topic of good law/bad law, I don't believe any law is good, for it assumes people are too inept to figure out why the law is there in the first place.  There's a reason why we don't drive on the wrong side of the road, and there's no law that's going to stop anyone from accidentally doing so.  What are we gonna do, fine them when they're dead?  If you have a group of people who are stupid enough to intentionally drive on the wrong side of the road, however, you have a much bigger issue than this law being violated, which I assume would be violent suicidal kamikaze teens.  All the law is, is a bandaid, and whatever problem it hopes to cure, will not, not on its own.  It's just an expensive overhead which has the bonus effect of keeping the poor, poor, while diverting funds to whoever's top dog.

There's just no law that can replace reason.  "If I drive on the wrong side of the road, I will die."  Okay, good; perfectly logical.  So what should we do?  "We must create a law."  Because people are too dumb to simply drive on the right side of the road, ammirite?  Or how about this one:  "Killing is bad.  We shouldn't kill other people."  Fine by me.  "We must create a law."  What for?  With all the murders which happen all the time in America specifically, it's obviously not helping, unless we assume that without the law, people would drop their entire lives and go on mass killing sprees daily.  But this assumes all people are very evil deep inside, which is funny:

There is a big problem when deciding what a good law and bad law are.  For instance it could be considered that not wearing a seat belt is a victimless crime, why make a law about it.  What gives another person the right to take their money because they are taking unneeded risk?  It's different if that risk is something like tailgating, I really wish there was something I could do about that..  I consider it a threat to my life.  I don't care if they're not wearing their belt if that's what they want, just don't increase my chances of dieing.
Monopoly laws don't work, but it would be really nice to not have corporations that are more powerful than many governments around the world.

I agree with your point, and most of your divisions.  It just seems like a difficult thing to do.

Subliminal message about pools.   

Your pool example is persuasive, but I find in everyday life people always seem to be squabbling about what the rules of the moment mean - the recent BFL bet for charity being a salient example. Something else must be going on between situations where people don't squabble about rule interpretations and other situations where they do. For reasons I don't understand, the same person might be placid about waiting for a red light to change (costing a minute of time), but belligerent about getting a parking ticket (costing a few dollars in most places), and of course when people debate "rule of law" issues all hell breaks loose. Is it a stakes thing, skin in the game? I dunno.

Well archy means: a combining form meaning “rule,” “government,”.

So anarchy would be without rule or government. Basically nobody ruling over you. Chaos implies confusion or disorder. That is not what I am saying would happen without people being ruled. The only chaos would be from the perception of someone who wishes to rule people.

But there can be order without being ruled. You play a game of pool and though there are rules, nobody is ruling over the players. The rules are agreed upon by the two players beforehand and followed.

I think I can agree with that.

Reading your OP I couldn't help but think you're understanding "anarchy" differntly than I am. For me it doesn't mean "no rules, no order, chaos". It just means "no state, no ruler". There can still be order and rules. Rules that are our own because we voluntarily agree to use them.

Morris and Linda Tannehill give a wonderful treatment of this in "The Market For Liberty", available as an e-book from Laissez Faire Books: lfb.org

I think the dividing line is this:

A good rule or law assists and streamlines society. Ignoring such a rule causes chaos and damage to the community. (Seat belts, driving on the right side of the road, simple contract law, industry standards)

A bad rule or law oppresses and consolidates control into certain groups or institutions. Society would function better if it ceased to exist. (monopoly, barriers to market entry, excessive taxation, back-room committees, frivolous fines, the war on drugs, militarization of police)

Interesting theme. On first reading it rang untrue for me because in my country it is illegal to drink in a park so the State immediately became an issue in the narrative.

Several readings later, I found myself reflecting on the non-State programming we all face the moment we are sentient. Everything from potty training to "what will the neighbours think?". Long before the State intrudes with overt manipulations like pledges of allegiance, invisible but very real rules are laid down by parents, peers and casual contacts. As religious zealots say, "get them while they're young."

"The child is father to the man."

So... is it possible to be free at birth after all? Someone will pick you up and move you about, at the very least. By the time you are old enough to assert your independent wants, say "the terrible twos", you will be thwarted, and you will give in only because of the adult power that thwarts you.

In adult life, the State is certainly the bully most to be feared most of the time by most people, but... I don't see a clear point of transition in life - the "-archy" asserts itself at birth, although not usually in the form of the State.

I'm starting to think there are "good -archy" components, such as potty training or driving on only one side of the road, but that in attempting to enumerate them we would all disagree, eventually leading to some version of where we are now - a myriad of laws that nobody much likes.

 

The school-yard bully is the military industrial complex/police, the state is the corrupt principal who lets him get away with whatever he wants and tries, but usually fails, to manipulate him to his own ends.

I believe the key thing in thinking about this is that if we get rid of government, it will create a vaccuum to be filled by more centralized power to control our lives.

What needs to happen is to do like Bitcoin and create a decentralized alternative first.

Voluntarism/Agorism may be such an answer.

I guess using the word "society" is poor wording. We are born into an anarchist world...but we join an "archist" society once we give in to following the rules of the archy because of their power.

lol

So if you self-describe as an anarchist, the good news is that we're already living in an anarchist society! Of course, the bad news is that ... we're already living in an anarchist society.

Pretty much...and the commercials and advice that I see about just ignoring bullies does not seem like it would work.

So, basically, the State is a school-yard bully, writ large?

Just an example. You could go out into the world as soon as you can walk and the example still applies but starting with a 2 year old that can push you down to older kids up to your parents, the police, military, etc...

Valid points, Elwar.  We're all anarchists until the state gets involved.  Once the state leaves us alone, we proceed to be anarchists again.  I tell you, the hardest thing to explain to someone is that society won't collapse into utter turmoil once the state disappears (you know, as seen in the movies); in fact, life would continue as it always has, just without state hindrance.

Yeah I've been thinking along these lines lately Elwar.  People talk about the free market, but this is the free market.  The regulations were tacitly chosen.  Now the general public has been tricked into many silly things that we never would have given permission to, but at the same point there is talk about responsibility.  Who let it get this way?  Everyone... and everyone has to take responsibility for that.

Great rant Elwar!

there is anarchy where no law exists, and there is anarcocapitalism, with the natural law.

Who is the owner of the park?

a) If the owner allows people to drink then everything is fine and nobody can ask you to stop.
b) If the owner doesn't want people to drink "some dude" goes to the park-police and ask them to stop you from drinking.


Edit: I misunderstood the OP  

why 18?