Thread: From Limited Government to Anarchy in Ten Easy Steps

I think that an anarchical society built on morals that all of the people willingly, peacefully followed would be a very nice thing to live in, indeed.

Unfortunately, its fundamentally impossible because someone, somewhere is going to be tempted to abuse the non-presence of government for their own benefit or depraved satisfaction, whether by unchecked murdur, extortion, etc....

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

You're dodging the question. How could we fit 7 billion people into these types of communities? Also, assuming that population isn't a problem, prove that a world filled with nothing but these communities would be a better option. ALSO, how would a world like this constrict the growth of corporation power?

Well what are you meaning by saying 'fit these people's into communities'? You won't have to move anywhere. Your property is your domain. It is not like anarchists are saying that we all have to move to some mega city or something.

And what do you mean that we should constrict corporate power? Do you mean like dumping harmful wastes? I don't think you mean monopolies since they are an impossibility on the free market. So you have to be more specific.

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

I think that an anarchical society built on morals that all of the people willingly, peacefully followed would be a very nice thing to live in, indeed.

Unfortunately, its fundamentally impossible because someone, somewhere is going to be tempted to abuse the non-presence of government for their own benefit or depraved satisfaction, whether by unchecked murdur, extortion, etc....

*sigh*

And we have sent the last several days on this forum discussion anarchistic legal systems. Anarchists are not against order [ at least the ones who aren't what I call 'smash and grab' anarchist who just exist to destroy] however, because we are for order does not then infer that government is good nor does it infer that the free market is unable to sell these services.

What would stop me from killing someone and moving into their house. Then using my own company say I am innocent, to force the case to go to an appeals court. Then insisting the appeal court is company A, a corrupt group I paid off to say I am innocent? As long as they are sufficiently large enough, its going to be impossible for everyone to blackball and ignore the corrupt company.

Or if a person hasn't hired his own private police, you can kill them and move into their house and then nothing would happen to you. No representation means no justice for them.

In fact the more money you have, the bigger the group you can hire to defend you. The more money you got, the more you can get away with. Our system has that same problem but at the end of the day, you still get to face a jury, and in an anarchy, there is no jury.

Originally Posted by Alric

What would stop me from killing someone and moving into their house. Then using my own company say I am innocent, to force the case to go to an appeals court. Then insisting the appeal court is company A, a corrupt group I paid off to say I am innocent? As long as they are sufficiently large enough, its going to be impossible for everyone to blackball and ignore the corrupt company.

So your theory is that you are going to murder someone, then pay off your own insurance company, a company that perhaps has thousands of customers makes millions perhaps billions a year, and get them to do something that can possibly make them lose all their honest customers which makes them suffer huge profit loses, then if they do such a thing, you are going to pay off another court system that goes through the same venture, the possibility of losing all their honest customers over the pittance of a bribe that you offer them?

Originally Posted by Alric

Or if a person hasn't hired his own private police, you can kill them and move into their house and then nothing would happen to you. No representation means no justice for them.

This person has no family? No next of kin? If not then their claim to compensation can be homesteaded since it is a valid property claim. Therefore if you kill person A who has no family and person B knows you did it, they could homestead the claim of compensation of your murderous acts.

Originally Posted by Alric

In fact the more money you have, the bigger the group you can hire to defend you. The more money you got, the more you can get away with. Our system has that same problem but at the end of the day, you still get to face a jury, and in an anarchy, there is no jury.

There can be a jury of your peers under the anarchist legal system. No wonder everyone is running around saying 'Anarchy won't work!', no one has really delved into the topic itself. Its all prima facia generalizations

Nope. I am saying if you are a millionaire, what is stopping you from creating your own personal defense company, then using it to defend you? They will obviously side with you, no matter how guilty you may be. Then if you have your best friend who did the same thing back you. You can go to them for an appeal and they will back you up as well. In that sort of system, you two can protect one another, and do basically anything you wanted and you would always get off.

Also what is stopping a company from being corrupt. If a company advertises that they will protect anyone, even formal criminals, they will always have large business with criminals. No legitimate person would hire them, but does that really matter? They are still making huge profit off illegitimate clients.

In fact there is nothing stopping a company from always saying your innocent, and selling you coverage based on that alone. "We don't ask questions, you are always innocent." There is nothing stopping them. There is as much profit in that as a legitimate business.

Originally Posted by Alric

Nope. I am saying if you are a millionaire, what is stopping you from creating your own personal defense company, then using it to defend you? They will obviously side with you, no matter how guilty you may be. Then if you have your best friend who did the same thing back you. You can go to them for an appeal and they will back you up as well. In that sort of system, you two can protect one another, and do basically anything you wanted and you would always get off.

Well personal defense can be separate from legal systems.

Originally Posted by Alric

Also what is stopping a company from being corrupt. If a company advertises that they will protect anyone, even formal criminals, they will always have large business with criminals. No legitimate person would hire them, but does that really matter? They are still making huge profit off illegitimate clients.

No legitimate person would hire them, so unless you consider everyone in the world a murder then yes..it does matter.

Originally Posted by Alric

In fact there is nothing stopping a company from always saying your innocent, and selling you coverage based on that alone. "We don't ask questions, you are always innocent." There is nothing stopping them. There is as much profit in that as a legitimate business.

Obviously they are going to be spending much more money on mass, rather then a corporation in which is honest. People who really are innocent would not stick around and pay excessive premiums for those who are really guilty.

You are missing the point. If there is a demand, then there will be a service. That is the entire point of the free market. Since there will be a demand for crooked legal companies, there will be someone there to supply that demand and make profit doing it.

People find ways to get hookers and drugs, despite them being bad and generally being frowned upon by most people. So I don't see why you suddenly think morally questionable demands, would disappear.

Originally Posted by Alric

You are missing the point. If there is a demand, then there will be a service. That is the entire point of the free market. Since there will be a demand for crooked legal companies, there will be someone there to supply that demand and make profit doing it.

There is no vast profit market when an announced crooked legal company is shown. They are consider outlaws and fraudsters if they are committing crimes.

Originally Posted by Alric

People find ways to get hookers and drugs, despite them being bad and generally being frowned upon by most people. So I don't see why you suddenly think morally questionable demands, would disappear.

Hookers and drugs are victimless 'crimes'. You are not harming someone by hiring a prostitute or smoking weed.

It doesn't matter. There are no real laws, and as long as they have clients, they will make a profit. Which is the flaw in the system. Even if everyone knows they are fraudsters, they are still obliged to follow their rulings. They can not reject them, or the entire system crumbles.

Originally Posted by Alric

It doesn't matter. There are no real laws, and as long as they have clients, they will make a profit. Which is the flaw in the system. Even if everyone knows they are fraudsters, they are still obliged to follow their rulings. They can not reject them, or the entire system crumbles.

Do you think the mere existence of a corporation means profits? How schooled are you in economics? And what is this nonsense that if they don't accept them then the entire system crumbles? Are you trying to postulate that every corporation under anarchy will be corrupt and by that then there can never be a corporation that does come about that isn't corrupt? Are we going to go into the Marxist dreamworld where everything under capitalism is corrupted and derogatory?

No I am saying, that in anarchy there is by definition no agreed upon terms of what is acceptable. Since companies can not agree on what is acceptable, and what is not, they will disagree with each other. In this situation, some companies will do things that are morally questionable, and since the system is set up as to not judge their action and allows the questionable behavior, they will get away with it.

A person has two choices, they could either accept the ruling of the corrupt court, or reject it and go to another party to force another ruling. Since no one is allowed to force people to do anything, then that only leaves accepting it.

Of course, it may be more likely that they will force the matter, but then its no longer a peaceful thing.

Originally Posted by Alric

No I am saying, that in anarchy there is by definition no agreed upon terms of what is acceptable. Since companies can not agree on what is acceptable, and what is not, they will disagree with each other. In this situation, some companies will do things that are morally questionable, and since the system is set up as to not judge their action and allows the questionable behavior, they will get away with it.

So you think that contracts cannot develop on the free market which states what is and isn't acceptable in terms of trade.

Originally Posted by Alric

A person has two choices, they could either accept the ruling of the corrupt court, or reject it and go to another party to force another ruling. Since no one is allowed to force people to do anything, then that only leaves accepting it.

Of course, it may be more likely that they will force the matter, but then its no longer a peaceful thing.

No one is forced to go to court, true, though once it has been established by the law that you are a criminal then proportional justice gets involved and to the extent that you break the lose is the extent to which you negate your rights. If I steal a 10 dollar bill then I lose the property rights up to ten dollars. Someone can reacquire their dollars back. If there should be compensation for damages is another discussion.

No I am saying they can, but not all people will feel obliged to follow them. The question is, how does the person collect? I have my own court and police that says it is rightly mine, and you have your own that says I need to pay you. It only works if both side are morally honest and looking out for the best in the community. If one side is corrupt or simply doesn't care about the community it doesn't work. If your police tries to force me into paying, then there is an escalation of violence, which only makes things worse.

To put it simply, the system relies on one of two things occurring. Either two competing companies need to compromise, or need an impartial third party to judge the dispute. The problem with the first is that the two are competing and so negations can and will break down. The problem with the second, is that a person receiving money directly from the groups involved, isn't going to be impartial.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well what are you meaning by saying 'fit these people's into communities'? You won't have to move anywhere. Your property is your domain. It is not like anarchists are saying that we all have to move to some mega city or something.

And what do you mean that we should constrict corporate power? Do you mean like dumping harmful wastes? I don't think you mean monopolies since they are an impossibility on the free market. So you have to be more specific.

When I mentioned that anarchy has only been present in very small communities and therefore cannot be used as an example that such a system could work for the world's 7 billion people, you stated:

"We're talking about the viability of such communities. Its an anarchist community, the point is that there is no overarching authority.

What decides to be made is the market."

I could only assume you were speaking of fitting all people into small anarchist communities.

You say that the fact that anarchist communities have existed and still exist today as evidence that they are a viable option for all 7 billion people on Earth. I'm asking you to also prove that anarchist societies could exist on such a large scale.

Concerning corporations:

If the power and practice of corporations is unchecked and unregulated it can lead to severe human rights violations. We saw this during the Industrial Revolution in America where people would get lured into the city to work in factories only to find the lifestyle to be far worse. How does anarchy prevent this?

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I could only assume you were speaking of fitting all people into small anarchist communities.

You say that the fact that anarchist communities have existed and still exist today as evidence that they are a viable option for all 7 billion people on Earth. I'm asking you to also prove that anarchist societies could exist on such a large scale.

You seem to be implying that there will be these small castles around the country in which we will live in, like Greek city states or something. Nobody really needs to move anywhere, unless they want to move. Freedom of movement and association. If the ideal anarchism society were to come tomorrow you can sit in your house and be a scourge the rest of your life if you so desire.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

If the power and practice of corporations is unchecked and unregulated it can lead to severe human rights violations. We saw this during the Industrial Revolution in America where people would get lured into the city to work in factories only to find the lifestyle to be far worse. How does anarchy prevent this?

What we experienced during the industrial revolution is a decrease in prices by over 85% [ what is unjustly called 'The Long Depression' ] and an increase in wages of if I remember correctly 13%. The standard of living vastly improved. So I don't see why you say 'lifestyles were far worse'. On the question of unregulated corporations, the sale of labor power is a voluntary transaction in which your wage is based on your marginal utility.

Government's only purpose is to secure the natural rights of individuals. Without it, there are no true "rights." In effect, as Hobbes said, life without any government is nasty, brutish, and short.

Originally Posted by mini0991

Government's only purpose is to secure the natural rights of individuals. Without it, there are no true "rights." In effect, as Hobbes said, life without any government is nasty, brutish, and short.

That is a complete contradiction of the natural rights theory. Natural rights theory are establish in the rational actor due to his existence with reason and logic, not because government is around to give him rights.

Originally Posted by mini0991

Government's only purpose is to secure the natural rights of individuals. Without it, there are no true "rights." In effect, as Hobbes said, life without any government is nasty, brutish, and short.

That's like saying without our rights outlined on paper (Bill of Rights), they don't exist. Completely nonsensical.

Who is there to defend your rights if there is no government? Who or what exists to ensure you get the full protection of these rights provided you respect others' rights as well?

Originally Posted by mini0991

Who is there to defend your rights if there is no government? Who or what exists to ensure you get the full protection of these rights provided you respect others' rights as well?

Yourself. Private police. Other people.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Yourself. Private police. Other people.

Because everyone wants to be constantly sleeping with an AK47 by their bedside just in case someone breaks in while they sleep. This is an absurd argument. Other people aren't going to help either, they're going to screw you over. This is why we have police to begin with.

Originally Posted by mini0991

Because everyone wants to be constantly sleeping with an AK47 by their bedside just in case someone breaks in while they sleep. This is an absurd argument. Other people aren't going to help either, they're going to screw you over. This is why we have police to begin with.

What is your reasoning? Now, I now this may shock you, but not everyone is out to kill each other.

And any self-respecting property owner would own the means to defend said property, whether through owning weapons or signing a contract with a private police company.

Honestly the issue has been discussed to such an extent that continuously asking the same questions gets irritating after a while.

The bottom line is that people shouldn't have to live in constant fear of having their house robbed. Again, that's why we (should) have limited government to ensure this responsibility for us. The common man can't be expected to do everything for themselves.