I apologize if this comes across as somewhat pedantic, but does this mean that you are actually saying that the agents of the defensive organization would be whoever was big, cruel, and crazy enough to swing the biggest sack of doorknobs?
I'm saying whoever has the biggest sack of doorknobs will be the dominant force in the region under any system. That's a law of nature. But there is no reason to think that anarchy would be any worse than the biggest doorknob swinger we have now, that is, the State. Because the defensive association IS the State, well, its defensive components.
Here's how the defensive organization will develop:
As the State withers and dies, protection and judicial services will still be needed. Therefore, a defensive organization will be established by the people to provide these services. Its organization will be determined by the people as will the determination of a source of funds. The only requirement is that it remains noninvasive, that being the defining difference between a defensive organization and a state.
I'm saying whoever has the biggest sack of doorknobs will be the dominant force in the region under any system. That's a law of nature. But there is no reason to think that anarchy would be any worse than the biggest doorknob swinger we have now, that is, the State. Because the defensive association IS the State, well, it's defensive components.
Here's how the defensive organization will develop:
As the State withers and dies, protection and judicial services will still be needed. Therefore, a defensive organization will be established by the people to provide these services. Its organization will be determined by the people as will the determination of a source of funds. The only requirement is that it remains noninvasive, that being the defining difference between a defensive organization and a state.
Who, then, makes sure that the defensive organization remains noninvasive, if there is no higher governing authority to maintain it?
On another note, back when I was researching communalism (not to be confused with communism), a hypothetical question was brought to my attention that I would be interesting to hear your answer to:
You and twenty other people begin a union, making your own laws and policing yourselves to the best of your abilities. The union does wonderfully, and you all live a near-utopian life until tragedy strikes when an earthquake kills all of the fertile women of the union. You are now faced with the dying off of your way of life within a generation. Ten miles away, there is another union, similar to yours but smaller, less well defended, and more importantly, doing poorly.
The concept of communalism cannot deal with this question.. if you invade and take their women, you have reverted to barbarism, and if you do not your way of life dies off quickly, and in a communalistic society these are really your two options. I am most definitely not trying to find out your answer to this question to bait you into any sort of argument or prove any type of point, I'm just wondering how an anarchistic society would deal with this issue.
The North also had slaves. Would this make the Northern government illegitimate?
Yes. But the problem was fixed internally. The North didn't declaim that slavery was the "cornerstone" of its republic, or have written in its Declaration of Independence that it seceded in order to protect the institution.
Not at all. I've joined many-a-club, or other organization, over the years and then decided to quit for one reason or another. I'm sure you have too.
Not all bonds, silly. But bonds like civil and criminal law would be useless if any wrongdoer could simply withdraw from them when it was more convenient to do so.
I can be friends with you even if you live under a different government. I have friends in Canada. There is no reason the same government needs to bind both of us for us to be friends.
"Friends" as in "howdy, neighbor," sure. But "friends" as in "let's do some business" is indeed much easier when you're governed by one authority than two. (And before you say it: zero is worse than either.)
What granted legal sanction to keep them enslaved in the first place? The government.
In your mind the government is somehow responsible for slavery? Is it also to be blamed for your respiration, since it hasn't explicitly banned you from breathing in and out? The government is at fault for not abolishing slavery sooner, but it was not the cause of slavery. I imagine here's where you state with complete confidence yet no justification at all that slavery is impossible in an anarchy. I'll head that off by pointing out that in the real world, the medieval Icelanders of whom you're so fond owned slaves. You'll say then that if they were true anarchists they wouldn't own slaves, and I'll respond that by your own standards, people can only be true anarchists voluntarily, and there will always be people who aren't interested in non-aggression.
If that's unfair, then so be it. Some things are more important than fairness. The child born to the rich parents has a better time than the child born to poor parents. That is also unfair.
"Central to Proudhon’s notion of contract is the idea of self-assumed obligation. A person is only obligated to do that which he has freely undertaken to do. The only form of direct democracy compatible with this conception of obligation is one in which it is recognized that a minority which has refused to consent to a majority decision has assumed no obligation to abide by it. Majority decisions are not binding on the minority. Any agreement to the contrary would itself be invalid because it would require the minority to forfeit its autonomy and substantive freedom."
Like I said, if you want to talk about this, start a new thread.
If Lincoln was truly nonthreatening then he would have taken military action against the South off the table, unless in self-defense. He decidedly did not...
You are either not reading the right speech, or not reading English. Because he did precisely this. I will not repeat myself again.
Bull☺☺☺☺. The South was arming for war. Recall that they styled themselves as a second Revolution. And as Jimbo already mentioned, this was a testosterone-soaked glorious-battle culture. Some of them, at least, would have been disappointed had there not been a war. No doubt if they actually knew what the war would entail beforehand, they'd have been of a different opinion, but I don't think anyone would dispute that the Southern decisionmakers were, as a practical matter, morons.
Who, then, makes sure that the defensive organization remains noninvasive, if there is no higher governing authority to maintain it?
Who ensures that the State follows its own laws? The only answer can be the people. An anarchistic society cannot be maintained without a largely anarchistic populace just as a democratic society cannot be maintained without a largely democratic populace.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best possible. No system can completely ensure that all the strictures are followed.
Lincoln for example unconstitutionally suspended habeus corpus and instituted an income during the war.
On another note, back when I was researching communalism (not to be confused with communism), a hypothetical question was brought to my attention that I would be interesting to hear your answer to:
You and twenty other people begin a union, making your own laws and policing yourselves to the best of your abilities. The union does wonderfully, and you all live a near-utopian life until tragedy strikes when an earthquake kills all of the fertile women of the union. You are now faced with the dying off of your way of life within a generation. Ten miles away, there is another union, similar to yours but smaller, less well defended, and more importantly, doing poorly.
The concept of communalism cannot deal with this question.. if you invade and take their women, you have reverted to barbarism, and if you do not your way of life dies off quickly, and in a communalistic society these are really your two options. I am most definitely not trying to find out your answer to this question to bait you into any sort of argument or prove any type of point, I'm just wondering how an anarchistic society would deal with this issue.
Invasion would be aggression. Some individuals in the society may decide to try it, perhaps even the majority. If so, then it is no longer anarchy but an archy.
The problem sure wasn't fixed when the South seceded.
Not all bonds, silly. But bonds like civil and criminal law would be useless if any wrongdoer could simply withdraw from them when it was more convenient to do so.
I've already said that the anarchists would abolish criminal law. Tort law does not require prior contract, if I steal your stuff you can take it back or have one of your agents take it back.
"Friends" as in "howdy, neighbor," sure. But "friends" as in "let's do some business" is indeed much easier when you're governed by one authority than two. (And before you say it: zero is worse than either.)
People seem to be able to do business with people in Canada and Europe.
In your mind the government is somehow responsible for slavery?
Somehow responsible? Slavery was enshrined in law and protected as property by the State. They had slave patrols for goodness sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol
Is it also to be blamed for your respiration, since it hasn't explicitly banned you from breathing in and out?
It's not that the State didn't ban slavery, it's that it protected and enforced it.
I imagine here's where you state with complete confidence yet no justification at all that slavery is impossible in an anarchy.
You are either not reading the right speech, or not reading English. Because he did precisely this. I will not repeat myself again.
Abraham Lincoln did not say "I recognize your right to secede but I wish you'd reconsider." You yourself have produced numerous quotes showing that Lincoln denied the right to secede.
Bull☺☺☺☺. The South was arming for war.
And why was the South arming for war? Did the South want to conquer the North? Hell no. The North wanted to conquer the South. The South just wanted to be left the hell alone. They were arming because they knew the North was going to declare war soon enough and they should prepare for it.
That depends. Did I cut off access to the well because I was understandably afraid for my life?
You did it after I was elected, but not yet inaugurated, president of the home-owner's association. What does that matter though? We had an arrangement, you broke it, and I took action to defend my property. The aggressor isn't the one who defends what is rightfully his but the one who forces the other into a defensive position.
The North took action to protect federal property from being seized illegally. How is that in any way, shape, or form aggression on the part of the North? Yeah, yeah, yeah, Lincoln was a bad guy and was threatening the South in his inauguration speech. What does that matter when the Fort was besieged and a merchant ship was fired upon by the South before Lincoln even stepped foot upon a podium as president?
Who ensures that the State follows its own laws? The only answer can be the people. An anarchistic society cannot be maintained without a largely anarchistic populace just as a democratic society cannot be maintained without a largely democratic populace.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best possible. No system can completely ensure that all the strictures are followed.
I still question why an anarchic society would be any different than a democratic State of the same size. You would get the same type of conflicts and the resolutions would be the same (ie if a compromise is not reached, the stronger group would impose its views on the weaker one).
Who ensures that the State follows its own laws? The only answer can be the people. An anarchistic society cannot be maintained without a largely anarchistic populace just as a democratic society cannot be maintained without a largely democratic populace.
This actually makes sense.
But, too bad people are by nature pack-oriented complete with alpha, not anarchist.
I've already said that the anarchists would abolish criminal law. Tort law does not require prior contract, if I steal your stuff you can take it back or have one of your agents take it back.
Why do I need you to steal my stuff first? Why not just take your ☺☺☺☺ regardless?
I still question why an anarchic society would be any different than a democratic State of the same size. You would get the same type of conflicts and the resolutions would be the same (ie if a compromise is not reached, the stronger group would impose its views on the weaker one).
The defensive organization would not be aggressive.
For example, the defensive organization could not conduct a "war on drugs" or prohibit entry into certain lines of work, a la taxi medallions. Furthermore, every individual would have the right to secede from the defensive organization.
Humans evolved to operate in tribes with a leader, and it become clear that the bigger the tribe (to a point of course, based on communication limitations) the more fit the system.
As in, there are more democratic humans than anarchistic ones. That's how we evolved to function.
If you take away the bad consequences of an action then the action becomes more desirable to perform. We all like having ☺☺☺☺. So, why don't we take each other's ☺☺☺☺? Well, there are negative reasons not to. But, the more benefit and less repercussions there is for an action the more likely someone is to do it. And Vice Versa.
The defensive organization would not be aggressive.
For example, the defensive organization could not conduct a "war on drugs" or prohibit entry into certain lines of work, a la taxi medallions. Furthermore, every individual would have the right to secede from the defensive organization.
How about a "war on not dumping garbage into the river we get our drinking water from"? People not following the anti-dumping rules are clearly endangering the community and if they refuse to stop the community has to take aggressive action to stop them.
How about a guy who wants to start a fireworks factory in the middle of the town. The community would be justified in feeling that he is endangering all their lives and should not conduct his business the way he does.
The right to secede from a group only works if the person doing the seceding is not affecting the group in any way.
"'But,' it will be asked of the Anarchists at this point in the argument, 'what shall be done with those individuals who undoubtedly will persist in violating the social law by invading their neighbors?' The Anarchists answer that the abolition of the State will leave in existence a defensive association, resting no longer on a compulsory but on a voluntary basis, which will restrain invaders by any means that may prove necessary.
So... You want a police force to police the people and uphold the law? Of the anarchy?
That about right?
How the ☺☺☺☺ is there law in an anarchy? Answer that and we'll go from there.
"There's law, it's the law we all agree on."
BULL☺☺☺☺. See, in a sane society, if a person's violating the law, then they're breaching the social contract, thus entitling the state to take action. However, you said anyone can choose to opt out of any social contract ever whenever they so choose. So what possible justification do you have for any of this crap? You're appealing to social contracts in an argument opposing social contracts!
You oppose social contracts, I ask what's to prevent someone from taking over, and you say a social contract? Really now?
Oh, and by the way, remember the American South? They had slavery. What police force existed to stop them?
So... You want a police force to police the people and uphold the law? Of the anarchy?
That about right?
The anarchists, well, most, have no problem with violence when used nonaggressively.
How the ☺☺☺☺ is there law in an anarchy? Answer that and we'll go from there.
The defensive society will use force to protect and retrieve property from aggressors.
"There's law, it's the law we all agree on."
No. Whether you agree that you can't take my stuff doesn't matter. You can't take my stuff and if you do the defensive society will do whatever proves necessary against you.
BULL☺☺☺☺. See, in a sane society, if a person's violating the law, then they're breaching the social contract, thus entitling the state to take action.
You're breaching my natural right to life, property and property which exists prior to any contract. The defensive association is entitled to act whenever aggression occurs.
However, you said anyone can choose to opt out of any social contract ever whenever they so choose.
Anyone can opt out of the protection of the defensive association whenever they choose. They cannot opt out of the natural law.
Oh, and by the way, remember the American South? They had slavery. What police force existed to stop them?
Well, duh! People in the anarchy obviously are willing to ascribe to a law that they broke and still face the consequences. Don't you look around? People turn themselves in for breaking the law all of the time!
I think you show great confusion with the arguments. I never said that I expect the aggressor to turn himself in, anymore than I expect aggressors now to turn themselves in.
How about a "war on not dumping garbage into the river we get our drinking water from"? People not following the anti-dumping rules are clearly endangering the community and if they refuse to stop the community has to take aggressive action to stop them.
Dumping pollutants into our river is a form of aggression and preventing them from doing so is a defensive action.
How about a guy who wants to start a fireworks factory in the middle of the town. The community would be justified in feeling that he is endangering all their lives and should not conduct his business the way he does.
If the fireworks factory is as dangerous as you say, then its construction in the middle of town is an act of aggression.
The right to secede from a group only works if the person doing the seceding is not affecting the group in any way.
"Not affecting the group in any way" is clearly an overstatement of any point you may have. The people of Canada live under a different government and they affect me in various ways.
Who ensures that the State follows its own laws? The only answer can be the people. An anarchistic society cannot be maintained without a largely anarchistic populace just as a democratic society cannot be maintained without a largely democratic populace.
But a democratic society has means for enforcing and protecting democracy, for keeping the society a society.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best possible. No system can completely ensure that all the strictures are followed.
You keep saying this, but you never give us any reason to believe it. On the contrary, whenever someone points out some unpleasant consequence of anarchy, you keep saying "They have to suck it up". Sucking up unpleasant consequences doesn't seem like the best possible solution. I can just as easily say that you have to suck up the consequences of democracy you dislike - and, because democracy is actually a historically proven system, we know what the consequences are. From the anarchists, it's just promises and handwaves.
The problem sure wasn't fixed when the South seceded.
So what? Is that supposed to justify the South somehow? You seem very pleased with this new argument you've discovered, not realizing or caring that it's a named fallacy.
Well, you completely ignored the historical evidence I pointed out, and this does not address it. Indeed, Mr. Murphy asks an important question that underscores the significance of the evidence: "the more one thinks through the economics of the situation, the more the problem becomes, 'How the heck did the South maintain such an inefficient system for so long?' " The fact is that societies often maintain institutions for non-economic reasons. We are not Homo economicus. The economic inefficiency of slavery is no guarantee that it will not happen in an anarchy. Because it has, if not in anarchies than in weak-lawed societies, over and over throughout history. Hell, it still happens, in places like Mauritania and Sudan. Do you know what is a guarantee? A government with the means and the will to outlaw it.
If anything, the economic inefficiency of slavery was a cause for the Southern resentment that led to secession. They were like Luddites, lashing out at a challenge to their traditional way of life. Only unlike the Luddites, there was a whole would-be-country of them. Had they miraculously gained independence, they could have kept slavery going for a long time, while their nation slipped into the backwaters of the world economy.
Abraham Lincoln did not say "I recognize your right to secede but I wish you'd reconsider." You yourself have produced numerous quotes showing that Lincoln denied the right to secede.
More than that, I have produced numerous arguments showing that there was no right to secede. But that's beside the point, because it's not what you said Abraham Lincoln didn't say. You say he didn't take violence off the table except for self-defense. He did, quite explicitly.
And why was the South arming for war? Did the South want to conquer the North? Hell no. The North wanted to conquer the South. The South just wanted to be left the hell alone. They were arming because they knew the North was going to declare war soon enough and they should prepare for it.
Like much else you say about the South's saintly intentions, this is at odds with their own belligerent prewar rhetoric. And let me remind you once again, they fired the first shots. At federal troops they were trying to starve into submission.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But a democratic society has means for enforcing and protecting democracy, for keeping the society a society.
If 60% of the people in a democracy don't believe in democracy, then you have a problem. In the same way, if 60% of the people in a monarchy don't believe in monarchy, you also have a problem. The same is true with any system, including anarchy.
You keep saying this, but you never give us any reason to believe it.
Every system is dependent on the people in that system following certain guidelines. This is true for any system and no more true for anarchy than any other.
Take the present United States, for example. How do we ensure that the government follows the Constitution? Well, it doesn't always, now does it? But it does adhere to it more or less but why does it do so? Because the Constitution is the basis of its authority and the people largely accept the Constitution as legitimate.
Now replace United States with defensive association and Constitution with Non-Aggression Principle and you have the same state of affairs that would exist in anarchy.
On the contrary, whenever someone points out some unpleasant consequence of anarchy, you keep saying "They have to suck it up".
I say nothing of the sort. What I do is accuse of Nirvana. "There is no perfect system, the problems you've pointed out will exist in any form of government and so cannot be counted against anarchy."
Read the habeus corpus clause of the Constitution again.
It's located under the Legislative Branch.
So what? Is that supposed to justify the South somehow? You seem very pleased with this new argument you've discovered, not realizing or caring that it's a named fallacy.
No, it's supposed to damn the North.
I said "easier".
If it's easier to do business if your business partner is a member of the same government, then that's an incentive not to secede but obviously business is still conducted and the world has not devolved into an orgy of chaos where conducting business is impossible just because there are a number of different governments throughout the world.
You say he didn't take violence off the table except for self-defense. He did, quite explicitly.
If you count his perverted notion of self-defense as keeping the Southern people bound to a government they do not support, then yes, he only threatened violence in self-defense.
Like much else you say about the South's saintly intentions, this is at odds with their own belligerent prewar rhetoric.
I've never heard anyone claim that the South has any intention of conquering the North.
If 60% of the people in a democracy don't believe in democracy, then you have a problem. In the same way, if 60% of the people in a monarchy don't believe in monarchy, you also have a problem. The same is true with any system, including anarchy.
The difference being that for anarchy, the "problem threshold" is much lower.
I say nothing of the sort. What I do is accuse of Nirvana. "There is no perfect system, the problems you've pointed out will exist in any form of government and so cannot be counted against anarchy."
The problem of unlicensed drivers will exist in any form of government?
If you count his perverted notion of self-defense as keeping the Southern people bound to a government they do not support, then yes, he only threatened violence in self-defense.
A criminal may not support the government, but he is still bound to it, and government action against that criminal, if made necessary by the criminal's actions, is indeed a form of defense.
Anybody will define "aggression" as whatever actions inhibit or harm their own interests.
Can we suppose that everybody's interests are never going to incidentally overlap? There are 20,000,000 folks in New York City and less than 10 acres of arable land on which to grow food.
The only way to have a civil society is to make it clear to everybody that their deepest interests ought to comprise the same things.
The only way to accomplish this is through a balanced combination of appeals to spirit, emotion, intellect, and force of arms.
Not everybody is always going to agree on what constitutes aggression; some cases of aggression are objectively quite clear to all, while other cases require dispassionate investigation by third parties (e.g., false-flag attacks). There is physical aggression, intellectual aggression, emotional aggression, and spiritual aggression, and many folks think some of these types of aggression ought to go unpunished.
Then there's the issue of the currency to be used in court settlements. In anarchy, if I win a tort suit against somebody, but there is no medium of exchange, do I simply get to name any of that individual's properties for myself to receive as compensation? If so, it would seem rational for a community to regularly conspire against its most wealthy member, accuse him or her of a major crime, collectively testify against him or her, convict him or her, and proceed to divide his or her wealth amongst themselves.
That might not seem too egregious in the abstract, but what about in the case where the city parties all summer while I labor constantly in the fields and forests gathering food and firewood for the winter? Ought the city-partiers be allowed to confiscate my preparations merely because they feel entitled to compensation for their own surrender to temptation? No.
Now, Shining Blue-Eyes, you also have neglected to mention that the united States Congress adjourned sine die in 1860, the year before President Lincoln declared martial law. You also haven't brought up anything about the United States of America Corporation formed in 1871. These facts are integral to understanding the Civil War. The North did not win as much as our history ascribes to it, nor did the South lose as much as we have been led to believe. The conditions of this land today are not free of all slavery.
Slavery really isn't economically inefficient, in the south if memory serves it had about a 10% ROI. The South didn't develop industry like the north did for a couple of reasons, the biggest being that they didn't have any mines. It was cheaper and easier to situate factories closer to northern ports of call and the much larger northern cities and markets. The north also had a tremendous supply of cheap labor in the form of immigrants, as well as more developed markets, and it wasn't unbearably hot and humid in the summer, either.
The south did have arable land and a hot, wet climate suitable for growing cash crops found in tropical climes (ie, cotton). It didn't have significant deposits of iron or coal. We have slavery in the united states right now - agricultural slavery, where migrant workers are essentially kept in debt and beholden to the corporations they work for. That's what Southern slavery was about - having people do jobs that are too finicky for machines to handle for little to no wages.
If slavery was economically inefficient, why didn't it just collapse under its own inefficiencies years before? There had been slaves in the colonies for 100 years, and the system didn't show any signs of becoming economically infeasible - it was moral arguments and beliefs about the rights of man that led to its dissolution. The Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Medevil lords, and Russians didn't have any problems with the economics of slavery/indentured servitude/serfdom.
The difference being that for anarchy, the "problem threshold" is much lower.
Why do you think that?
The problem of unlicensed drivers will exist in any form of government?
Licensure is a scheme to generate revenue, just like traffic tickets.
Again: so what?
So, the Northern government was evil and Lincoln was a despicable man.
A criminal may not support the government, but he is still bound to it, and government action against that criminal, if made necessary by the criminal's actions, is indeed a form of defense.
Only if you hold the absurd notion that secession constitutes aggression.
One does not need to want to conquer someone in order to want to fight someone.
Are you honestly telling me that even if Lincoln had said "Ok, you've seceded. Good luck, we'll leave you alone." That the South would have launched an attack on the North?
"Anarchism does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." - Benjamin R. Tucker
Are you honestly telling me that even if Lincoln had said "Ok, you've seceded. Good luck, we'll leave you alone." That the South would have launched an attack on the North?
They attacked before Lincoln was even president. Look, if you want to assert that the South had the right to secede have at it, but please stop any notions that the South just wanted things done peacefully. They illegally seized federal property and shot at an unarmed merchant ship that was trying to supply a federal fort that was besieged. Those actions don't sound like trying to just live in peace.
Who ensures that the State follows its own laws? The only answer can be the people. An anarchistic society cannot be maintained without a largely anarchistic populace just as a democratic society cannot be maintained without a largely democratic populace.
This actually makes sense.
But, too bad people are by nature pack-oriented complete with alpha, not anarchist.
I've already said that the anarchists would abolish criminal law. Tort law does not require prior contract, if I steal your stuff you can take it back or have one of your agents take it back.
Why do I need you to steal my stuff first? Why not just take your ☺☺☺☺ regardless?
Like the problems with anarchy, if you ignore it do you think it will go away?
Badnarik was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate and a "min anarchist." I feel he has a more refined view than say "anarchists" do. The debate here is about two hours where min-anarchism (Badnarik) and anarchism( Stefan Molyneux) is debated:
So, the Northern government was evil and Lincoln was a despicable man.
So was the Southern government and Jeff Davis. (Only more so.) Again: what is your point? This argument is blatantly ad hominem, therefore invalid, and tu quoque, therefore self-defeating.
Only if you hold the absurd notion that secession constitutes aggression.
I hold to the notion that secession performed in order to commit a crime constitutes aggression. A thief can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to steal now." A murderer can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to murder now." A slaver can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to own slaves now."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Licensure is a scheme to generate revenue, just like traffic tickets.
As a member of a licensed profession I have to disagree here. In areas where the safety and wellbeing of others can be imperiled by an unqualified individual, licensing provides a baseline for what level of competence the community is willing to accept and not treat as endangering the public. They are a pre-emptive measure against 'aggression' against the group through negligence.
What you are disagreeing with is government obtaining more money from licenses than is necessary to administer the licensing system.
I hold to the notion that secession performed in order to commit a crime constitutes aggression. A thief can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to steal now." A murderer can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to murder now." A slaver can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to own slaves now."
That does not work. Slavery was not a crime in the US at the time of the secession so the South was not committing a legal crime by keeping slaves after secession.
A better case would be made about the seizure of federal property by the South which is what Fort Sumter was about.
They attacked before Lincoln was even president. Look, if you want to assert that the South had the right to secede have at it, but please stop any notions that the South just wanted things done peacefully. They illegally seized federal property and shot at an unarmed merchant ship that was trying to supply a federal fort that was besieged. Those actions don't sound like trying to just live in peace.
The South would would have governed themselves and let the North govern itself. It was the North that wanted to conquer the South.
As a member of a licensed profession I have to disagree here. In areas where the safety and wellbeing of others can be imperiled by an unqualified individual, licensing provides a baseline for what level of competence the community is willing to accept and not treat as endangering the public. They are a pre-emptive measure against 'aggression' against the group through negligence.
Licensure for professionals is a means to restrict supply and thereby allow those already established in the profession to charge a higher price.
I hold to the notion that secession performed in order to commit a crime constitutes aggression. A thief can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to steal now." A murderer can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to murder now." A slaver can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to own slaves now."
Lincoln wasn't questioning their right to hold slaves. Even if the South didn't secede people could own slaves and the government was not only fine with this, it protected the institution with force.
Are you honestly telling me that even if Lincoln had said "Ok, you've seceded. Good luck, we'll leave you alone." That the South would have launched an attack on the North?
SBE: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. JEFFERSON DAVIS ORDERED THE ATTACK ON FORT SUMTER IN ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE THE CONFEDERACY AND FORCE VIRGINIA TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST THE UNION!
Without the wealth, influence, and ports of Virginia within the Confederacy, the poorest, least industrialized, and deepest Southern states would have been all that constituted the Confederacy. They would have been a laughingstock that would quite possibly have dissolved without Virginias power, influence, and resources to anchor them. They already had terrible problems with their government since the confederate systems central tenet is decentralized control and their first real test of leadership was a war.
Without Virginia, the Confederacy quite possibly would have dissolved on its own and the states would've slipped back into the Union shamefacedly one by one. Davis knew this, and so he ordered the attack in order to split the Union further and add real muscle to the South, hopefully in the form of Virginia, with any luck Kentucky, and maybe getting General Lee for their military as well. The war was a political ploy in effort to consolidate fractured groups behind two extreme positions, much like the Franco Prussian war, the entire point of which was a gambit by Otto Von Bismarck to unite the Germanic states.
The South had no ports worth mentioning outside of Virginia and Louisiana. All of their goods traveled out via railroads into the North, and primarily left the country out of New York City. The % of national industry, and tax revenue, that was generated by New York City was truly staggering. I believe that New York on its own could have funded the Norths entire war effort. The South needed not to be absolutely dwarfed by their neighbor in every economic respect, if the resultant country had financial difficulties due to alienating its former brethren, moderates and Unionists could have exploited the cooling secessionist fervor to sieze control from the extremists and attempt a return to the Union. The extremists needed to push the situation to the tipping point - they wouldn't stay in the Union for anything short of the new Republican government reneging on their entire political platform, and Lincoln and the Republicans would not be held hostage by a defeated political party, 14 of whose members in the Senate had already left the Union before he had taken the oath of office.
I'm saying whoever has the biggest sack of doorknobs will be the dominant force in the region under any system. That's a law of nature. But there is no reason to think that anarchy would be any worse than the biggest doorknob swinger we have now, that is, the State. Because the defensive association IS the State, well, its defensive components.
Here's how the defensive organization will develop:
As the State withers and dies, protection and judicial services will still be needed. Therefore, a defensive organization will be established by the people to provide these services. Its organization will be determined by the people as will the determination of a source of funds. The only requirement is that it remains noninvasive, that being the defining difference between a defensive organization and a state.
Who, then, makes sure that the defensive organization remains noninvasive, if there is no higher governing authority to maintain it?
On another note, back when I was researching communalism (not to be confused with communism), a hypothetical question was brought to my attention that I would be interesting to hear your answer to:
You and twenty other people begin a union, making your own laws and policing yourselves to the best of your abilities. The union does wonderfully, and you all live a near-utopian life until tragedy strikes when an earthquake kills all of the fertile women of the union. You are now faced with the dying off of your way of life within a generation. Ten miles away, there is another union, similar to yours but smaller, less well defended, and more importantly, doing poorly.
The concept of communalism cannot deal with this question.. if you invade and take their women, you have reverted to barbarism, and if you do not your way of life dies off quickly, and in a communalistic society these are really your two options. I am most definitely not trying to find out your answer to this question to bait you into any sort of argument or prove any type of point, I'm just wondering how an anarchistic society would deal with this issue.
Yes. But the problem was fixed internally. The North didn't declaim that slavery was the "cornerstone" of its republic, or have written in its Declaration of Independence that it seceded in order to protect the institution.
So, tu quoque fail.
Not all bonds, silly. But bonds like civil and criminal law would be useless if any wrongdoer could simply withdraw from them when it was more convenient to do so.
"Friends" as in "howdy, neighbor," sure. But "friends" as in "let's do some business" is indeed much easier when you're governed by one authority than two. (And before you say it: zero is worse than either.)
In your mind the government is somehow responsible for slavery? Is it also to be blamed for your respiration, since it hasn't explicitly banned you from breathing in and out? The government is at fault for not abolishing slavery sooner, but it was not the cause of slavery. I imagine here's where you state with complete confidence yet no justification at all that slavery is impossible in an anarchy. I'll head that off by pointing out that in the real world, the medieval Icelanders of whom you're so fond owned slaves. You'll say then that if they were true anarchists they wouldn't own slaves, and I'll respond that by your own standards, people can only be true anarchists voluntarily, and there will always be people who aren't interested in non-aggression.
Like I said, if you want to talk about this, start a new thread.
You are either not reading the right speech, or not reading English. Because he did precisely this. I will not repeat myself again.
Bull☺☺☺☺. The South was arming for war. Recall that they styled themselves as a second Revolution. And as Jimbo already mentioned, this was a testosterone-soaked glorious-battle culture. Some of them, at least, would have been disappointed had there not been a war. No doubt if they actually knew what the war would entail beforehand, they'd have been of a different opinion, but I don't think anyone would dispute that the Southern decisionmakers were, as a practical matter, morons.
Which are repeated ad nauseam as a poor substitute for justification, apparently.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Who ensures that the State follows its own laws? The only answer can be the people. An anarchistic society cannot be maintained without a largely anarchistic populace just as a democratic society cannot be maintained without a largely democratic populace.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best possible. No system can completely ensure that all the strictures are followed.
Lincoln for example unconstitutionally suspended habeus corpus and instituted an income during the war.
Invasion would be aggression. Some individuals in the society may decide to try it, perhaps even the majority. If so, then it is no longer anarchy but an archy.
The problem sure wasn't fixed when the South seceded.
I've already said that the anarchists would abolish criminal law. Tort law does not require prior contract, if I steal your stuff you can take it back or have one of your agents take it back.
People seem to be able to do business with people in Canada and Europe.
Somehow responsible? Slavery was enshrined in law and protected as property by the State. They had slave patrols for goodness sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol
It's not that the State didn't ban slavery, it's that it protected and enforced it.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html
Abraham Lincoln did not say "I recognize your right to secede but I wish you'd reconsider." You yourself have produced numerous quotes showing that Lincoln denied the right to secede.
And why was the South arming for war? Did the South want to conquer the North? Hell no. The North wanted to conquer the South. The South just wanted to be left the hell alone. They were arming because they knew the North was going to declare war soon enough and they should prepare for it.
You did it after I was elected, but not yet inaugurated, president of the home-owner's association. What does that matter though? We had an arrangement, you broke it, and I took action to defend my property. The aggressor isn't the one who defends what is rightfully his but the one who forces the other into a defensive position.
The North took action to protect federal property from being seized illegally. How is that in any way, shape, or form aggression on the part of the North? Yeah, yeah, yeah, Lincoln was a bad guy and was threatening the South in his inauguration speech. What does that matter when the Fort was besieged and a merchant ship was fired upon by the South before Lincoln even stepped foot upon a podium as president?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I still question why an anarchic society would be any different than a democratic State of the same size. You would get the same type of conflicts and the resolutions would be the same (ie if a compromise is not reached, the stronger group would impose its views on the weaker one).
But, too bad people are by nature pack-oriented complete with alpha, not anarchist.
Why do I need you to steal my stuff first? Why not just take your ☺☺☺☺ regardless?
The defensive organization would not be aggressive.
For example, the defensive organization could not conduct a "war on drugs" or prohibit entry into certain lines of work, a la taxi medallions. Furthermore, every individual would have the right to secede from the defensive organization.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Why don't you take your neighbor's stuff now?
As in, there are more democratic humans than anarchistic ones. That's how we evolved to function.
I don't want my liberty taken away from me.
If you take away the bad consequences of an action then the action becomes more desirable to perform. We all like having ☺☺☺☺. So, why don't we take each other's ☺☺☺☺? Well, there are negative reasons not to. But, the more benefit and less repercussions there is for an action the more likely someone is to do it. And Vice Versa.
How about a "war on not dumping garbage into the river we get our drinking water from"? People not following the anti-dumping rules are clearly endangering the community and if they refuse to stop the community has to take aggressive action to stop them.
How about a guy who wants to start a fireworks factory in the middle of the town. The community would be justified in feeling that he is endangering all their lives and should not conduct his business the way he does.
The right to secede from a group only works if the person doing the seceding is not affecting the group in any way.
So... You want a police force to police the people and uphold the law? Of the anarchy?
That about right?
How the ☺☺☺☺ is there law in an anarchy? Answer that and we'll go from there.
"There's law, it's the law we all agree on."
BULL☺☺☺☺. See, in a sane society, if a person's violating the law, then they're breaching the social contract, thus entitling the state to take action. However, you said anyone can choose to opt out of any social contract ever whenever they so choose. So what possible justification do you have for any of this crap? You're appealing to social contracts in an argument opposing social contracts!
You oppose social contracts, I ask what's to prevent someone from taking over, and you say a social contract? Really now?
Oh, and by the way, remember the American South? They had slavery. What police force existed to stop them?
Oh right, THE NORTH.
The anarchists, well, most, have no problem with violence when used nonaggressively.
The defensive society will use force to protect and retrieve property from aggressors.
No. Whether you agree that you can't take my stuff doesn't matter. You can't take my stuff and if you do the defensive society will do whatever proves necessary against you.
You're breaching my natural right to life, property and property which exists prior to any contract. The defensive association is entitled to act whenever aggression occurs.
Anyone can opt out of the protection of the defensive association whenever they choose. They cannot opt out of the natural law.
Remember the North? They also had slavery.
I think you show great confusion with the arguments. I never said that I expect the aggressor to turn himself in, anymore than I expect aggressors now to turn themselves in.
Dumping pollutants into our river is a form of aggression and preventing them from doing so is a defensive action.
If the fireworks factory is as dangerous as you say, then its construction in the middle of town is an act of aggression.
"Not affecting the group in any way" is clearly an overstatement of any point you may have. The people of Canada live under a different government and they affect me in various ways.
But a democratic society has means for enforcing and protecting democracy, for keeping the society a society.
You keep saying this, but you never give us any reason to believe it. On the contrary, whenever someone points out some unpleasant consequence of anarchy, you keep saying "They have to suck it up". Sucking up unpleasant consequences doesn't seem like the best possible solution. I can just as easily say that you have to suck up the consequences of democracy you dislike - and, because democracy is actually a historically proven system, we know what the consequences are. From the anarchists, it's just promises and handwaves.
Read the habeus corpus clause of the Constitution again.
So what? Is that supposed to justify the South somehow? You seem very pleased with this new argument you've discovered, not realizing or caring that it's a named fallacy.
I said "easier".
So's your life. Well, not as property.
Well, you completely ignored the historical evidence I pointed out, and this does not address it. Indeed, Mr. Murphy asks an important question that underscores the significance of the evidence: "the more one thinks through the economics of the situation, the more the problem becomes, 'How the heck did the South maintain such an inefficient system for so long?' " The fact is that societies often maintain institutions for non-economic reasons. We are not Homo economicus. The economic inefficiency of slavery is no guarantee that it will not happen in an anarchy. Because it has, if not in anarchies than in weak-lawed societies, over and over throughout history. Hell, it still happens, in places like Mauritania and Sudan. Do you know what is a guarantee? A government with the means and the will to outlaw it.
If anything, the economic inefficiency of slavery was a cause for the Southern resentment that led to secession. They were like Luddites, lashing out at a challenge to their traditional way of life. Only unlike the Luddites, there was a whole would-be-country of them. Had they miraculously gained independence, they could have kept slavery going for a long time, while their nation slipped into the backwaters of the world economy.
More than that, I have produced numerous arguments showing that there was no right to secede. But that's beside the point, because it's not what you said Abraham Lincoln didn't say. You say he didn't take violence off the table except for self-defense. He did, quite explicitly.
Like much else you say about the South's saintly intentions, this is at odds with their own belligerent prewar rhetoric. And let me remind you once again, they fired the first shots. At federal troops they were trying to starve into submission.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If 60% of the people in a democracy don't believe in democracy, then you have a problem. In the same way, if 60% of the people in a monarchy don't believe in monarchy, you also have a problem. The same is true with any system, including anarchy.
Every system is dependent on the people in that system following certain guidelines. This is true for any system and no more true for anarchy than any other.
Take the present United States, for example. How do we ensure that the government follows the Constitution? Well, it doesn't always, now does it? But it does adhere to it more or less but why does it do so? Because the Constitution is the basis of its authority and the people largely accept the Constitution as legitimate.
Now replace United States with defensive association and Constitution with Non-Aggression Principle and you have the same state of affairs that would exist in anarchy.
I say nothing of the sort. What I do is accuse of Nirvana. "There is no perfect system, the problems you've pointed out will exist in any form of government and so cannot be counted against anarchy."
It's located under the Legislative Branch.
No, it's supposed to damn the North.
If it's easier to do business if your business partner is a member of the same government, then that's an incentive not to secede but obviously business is still conducted and the world has not devolved into an orgy of chaos where conducting business is impossible just because there are a number of different governments throughout the world.
If you count his perverted notion of self-defense as keeping the Southern people bound to a government they do not support, then yes, he only threatened violence in self-defense.
I've never heard anyone claim that the South has any intention of conquering the North.
The difference being that for anarchy, the "problem threshold" is much lower.
The problem of unlicensed drivers will exist in any form of government?
True enough; I had forgotten that Lincoln's move was unilateral.
Again: so what?
A criminal may not support the government, but he is still bound to it, and government action against that criminal, if made necessary by the criminal's actions, is indeed a form of defense.
One does not need to want to conquer someone in order to want to fight someone.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Can we suppose that everybody's interests are never going to incidentally overlap? There are 20,000,000 folks in New York City and less than 10 acres of arable land on which to grow food.
The only way to have a civil society is to make it clear to everybody that their deepest interests ought to comprise the same things.
The only way to accomplish this is through a balanced combination of appeals to spirit, emotion, intellect, and force of arms.
Not everybody is always going to agree on what constitutes aggression; some cases of aggression are objectively quite clear to all, while other cases require dispassionate investigation by third parties (e.g., false-flag attacks). There is physical aggression, intellectual aggression, emotional aggression, and spiritual aggression, and many folks think some of these types of aggression ought to go unpunished.
Then there's the issue of the currency to be used in court settlements. In anarchy, if I win a tort suit against somebody, but there is no medium of exchange, do I simply get to name any of that individual's properties for myself to receive as compensation? If so, it would seem rational for a community to regularly conspire against its most wealthy member, accuse him or her of a major crime, collectively testify against him or her, convict him or her, and proceed to divide his or her wealth amongst themselves.
That might not seem too egregious in the abstract, but what about in the case where the city parties all summer while I labor constantly in the fields and forests gathering food and firewood for the winter? Ought the city-partiers be allowed to confiscate my preparations merely because they feel entitled to compensation for their own surrender to temptation? No.
Now, Shining Blue-Eyes, you also have neglected to mention that the united States Congress adjourned sine die in 1860, the year before President Lincoln declared martial law. You also haven't brought up anything about the United States of America Corporation formed in 1871. These facts are integral to understanding the Civil War. The North did not win as much as our history ascribes to it, nor did the South lose as much as we have been led to believe. The conditions of this land today are not free of all slavery.
The south did have arable land and a hot, wet climate suitable for growing cash crops found in tropical climes (ie, cotton). It didn't have significant deposits of iron or coal. We have slavery in the united states right now - agricultural slavery, where migrant workers are essentially kept in debt and beholden to the corporations they work for. That's what Southern slavery was about - having people do jobs that are too finicky for machines to handle for little to no wages.
If slavery was economically inefficient, why didn't it just collapse under its own inefficiencies years before? There had been slaves in the colonies for 100 years, and the system didn't show any signs of becoming economically infeasible - it was moral arguments and beliefs about the rights of man that led to its dissolution. The Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Medevil lords, and Russians didn't have any problems with the economics of slavery/indentured servitude/serfdom.
Why do you think that?
Licensure is a scheme to generate revenue, just like traffic tickets.
So, the Northern government was evil and Lincoln was a despicable man.
Only if you hold the absurd notion that secession constitutes aggression.
Are you honestly telling me that even if Lincoln had said "Ok, you've seceded. Good luck, we'll leave you alone." That the South would have launched an attack on the North?
"Anarchism does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." - Benjamin R. Tucker
They attacked before Lincoln was even president. Look, if you want to assert that the South had the right to secede have at it, but please stop any notions that the South just wanted things done peacefully. They illegally seized federal property and shot at an unarmed merchant ship that was trying to supply a federal fort that was besieged. Those actions don't sound like trying to just live in peace.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Because an unorganized 70% can be taken over by an organized 30%
Also, you missed my post:
This actually makes sense.
But, too bad people are by nature pack-oriented complete with alpha, not anarchist.
Why do I need you to steal my stuff first? Why not just take your ☺☺☺☺ regardless?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik
Badnarik was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate and a "min anarchist." I feel he has a more refined view than say "anarchists" do. The debate here is about two hours where min-anarchism (Badnarik) and anarchism( Stefan Molyneux) is debated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_k93op7_Pc
It's fairly interesting see the line drawn between anarchism and min-anarchism, and sorry couldn't find a transcript.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It's also a scheme to make the roads safe to travel on. To insist otherwise is simply to embarrass your position.
So was the Southern government and Jeff Davis. (Only more so.) Again: what is your point? This argument is blatantly ad hominem, therefore invalid, and tu quoque, therefore self-defeating.
I hold to the notion that secession performed in order to commit a crime constitutes aggression. A thief can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to steal now." A murderer can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to murder now." A slaver can't just drop out of the social contract and say, "Okay, I'm free to own slaves now."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As a member of a licensed profession I have to disagree here. In areas where the safety and wellbeing of others can be imperiled by an unqualified individual, licensing provides a baseline for what level of competence the community is willing to accept and not treat as endangering the public. They are a pre-emptive measure against 'aggression' against the group through negligence.
What you are disagreeing with is government obtaining more money from licenses than is necessary to administer the licensing system.
That does not work. Slavery was not a crime in the US at the time of the secession so the South was not committing a legal crime by keeping slaves after secession.
A better case would be made about the seizure of federal property by the South which is what Fort Sumter was about.
The South would would have governed themselves and let the North govern itself. It was the North that wanted to conquer the South.
That's the justification, not the cause.
Licensure for professionals is a means to restrict supply and thereby allow those already established in the profession to charge a higher price.
Lincoln wasn't questioning their right to hold slaves. Even if the South didn't secede people could own slaves and the government was not only fine with this, it protected the institution with force.
SBE: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. JEFFERSON DAVIS ORDERED THE ATTACK ON FORT SUMTER IN ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE THE CONFEDERACY AND FORCE VIRGINIA TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST THE UNION!
Without the wealth, influence, and ports of Virginia within the Confederacy, the poorest, least industrialized, and deepest Southern states would have been all that constituted the Confederacy. They would have been a laughingstock that would quite possibly have dissolved without Virginias power, influence, and resources to anchor them. They already had terrible problems with their government since the confederate systems central tenet is decentralized control and their first real test of leadership was a war.
Without Virginia, the Confederacy quite possibly would have dissolved on its own and the states would've slipped back into the Union shamefacedly one by one. Davis knew this, and so he ordered the attack in order to split the Union further and add real muscle to the South, hopefully in the form of Virginia, with any luck Kentucky, and maybe getting General Lee for their military as well. The war was a political ploy in effort to consolidate fractured groups behind two extreme positions, much like the Franco Prussian war, the entire point of which was a gambit by Otto Von Bismarck to unite the Germanic states.
The South had no ports worth mentioning outside of Virginia and Louisiana. All of their goods traveled out via railroads into the North, and primarily left the country out of New York City. The % of national industry, and tax revenue, that was generated by New York City was truly staggering. I believe that New York on its own could have funded the Norths entire war effort. The South needed not to be absolutely dwarfed by their neighbor in every economic respect, if the resultant country had financial difficulties due to alienating its former brethren, moderates and Unionists could have exploited the cooling secessionist fervor to sieze control from the extremists and attempt a return to the Union. The extremists needed to push the situation to the tipping point - they wouldn't stay in the Union for anything short of the new Republican government reneging on their entire political platform, and Lincoln and the Republicans would not be held hostage by a defeated political party, 14 of whose members in the Senate had already left the Union before he had taken the oath of office.