Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by hawkeye, Jun 25, 2014.
I do not think you would understand so I won't go into it.
Why is that though?
Do they like the system as it is?
Do they think that if their chosen party gets in then all the problems will be solved?
Do they have a vested interest in keeping it the way it is?
Are they worried about what would happen during the changeover period?
They are already doing what they are told under the present system, if someone else comes along and tells them to do something else, why wouldn't they keep doing what they were told?
There are still people in the South of the USA who believe the south will rise again and they can go back to owning slaves or whatever they think will happen, they fought very hard against a change in government, now they are just slogans on a bumper sticker.
There will always be people who oppose change, change happens without them anyway.
If they have reasons why they don't want change you can negotiate with them and try to accommodate them, if they just dig their heels in and refuse to discuss their reasons you just have to go on without them, I don't see how that benifits them but I also don't see how Foxtel makes life any better either.
Shares (via contract) and self-ownership aren't necessarily incompatible things. More so in the case of prisoners. Once someone has committed a crime by infringing on someone else's rights then they cede some of their rights (in proportion to the severity of their infringement, not absolutely).
The 2nd question is much deeper, possibly even worthy of it's own thread. In an environment where most people were signed up with some form of dispute resolution organisation (DRO) to provide protective services, ready access to a justice system, surety, insurance etc then they would have an interest in obtaining justice for the victim and a moral right to do so. People like Stefan Molyneux have argued that the majority of people would be members of DROs (just like most people have a bank account or some form of insurance today) because there would be very strong economic reasons for you and for the people you engage with to be mutually covered. In complex, developed economies I would agree but would note that the incentives are probably far less in a developing country context where it would come back to families links.
Beyond that, murder - particularly unsolved and unpunished murder - affects many people beyond those who knew them. Until the perp is caught and the reasons for the murder are known we view it as a threat to our own safety. Consequently even the death of, say, a homeless person with no friends or family warrants the tracking down and trial of the perpetrator. Time and distance obviously water down the moral right, but in the first instance, there exists a significant group of people who quite rightly feel threatened by the actions of the murderer. They are therefore justified in taking steps to resolve that threat and to temporarily take away the liberty of the murderer for the purpose of an open and fair trial with whatever restitution is deemed sufficient.
I would apply the same to crimes such as break and enter and assault, but not necessarily to breach of contract (but I'd have to think about that some more). In essence, even if the mafia victim whose legs were broken does not want to press charges (because they are too scared), others in society have an interest and justification to press charges on their behalf.
screw with the systems as much as you want. So long as your prepared to pay the price. And within an anarchistic system, perhaps you won't get the punishment you might expect. Anarchism at it's best perhaps?
I wouldn't have thought that the willingness to initiate fraud, force or violence against others or their property would have been that hard to understand. Or are you just going to raise an army to forcibly create a fascist dictatorship with you in the privileged higher echelons obtaining as many pretty young harem boys as you want? That's pretty easy to understand.
Whatever is preventing you from doing that now will still exist under an alternative social structure.
No need to do anything now because the system we have works. What is the first thing that would happen if a Anarchy kicked in?
Not a hard question and it is pretty obvious....
Does it really??!! Your easily pleased it would seem.
Do you think you might need help? Is this a psychological thing? Do you have urges? I don't know, I'm just speculating, but you claim it's something that people wouldn't understand. That's usually a bad sign. When you think nobody can understand you. Bad stuff happens even with government around, so my suggestion to you would be to go get some help.
Or if it's nothing like that why not just tell us.
Some people are never happy, spoke to a Chinese woman not long ago and she asked me if I have ever been hungry. I replied I have eaten canned, dehydrated and low quality food for 5 months and she told me as a child her siblings would be so hungry they ate grass and then they would get into trouble from their parents and get hit because the grass was for the animals.
I would say the system works, a lot of people here seem to whinge how badly they have it because they can't get the new car they want because the European vacation cost them so much.
How many people here can say they have been truly hungry before? I would say most likely none.
People on this forum just seem to enjoy whinging about how bad they have it.
You think you had it hard ?
To much effort to be honest and a waste of my time. I am not saying people would not understand I am saying boardsilver would not understand.
There are a few people who live ina libertarian fantasy world not the real world.
I may actually do quite well in that environment In an Anarchist environment there is no system, I thought that was the point of it....
No, there is no government.
It depends upon the system of anarchy that is in operation as to whether you would thrive as a positive influence in an anarchist society or a negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought . I'm hazarding that with your background and skills you would be an asset as a security/enforcement provider. There's a business model there for you and a few of your mates.
On another note this bit is interesting:
I'm not sure anarchism has been anti-capitalist though I will grant that some anarchists are and have been. Though to me it seems contradictory.
To clarify my own personal position, I am, broadly speaking, in the anarcho-capitalism camp. If people want to say I'm not a true anarchist, well, I honestly don't think I care... It's all labels at the end of the day and it is the substance which matters not which particular label you put on yourself.
For those who want to find out about law I will post my favourite video on the subject, give a brief synopsis, and elaborate further on my view when I have time.
Basically, in the video he starts out with a brief example and then shows why, rather than leading to a chaotic situation, free market security and arbitration companies will be incentivised to actually solve the problem in the most efficient and, crucially the fairest way possible. At the moment we have a monopoly on law. What we anarchists are saying that instead of having a monopoly, we can have competition in law. While this might sound strange at first, think about the world as a whole and you will realise there is no worldwide law but instead lots of law jurisdictions and then they have to work together on an international basis. What we are saying is, why tie law to the land? Why do you need to? If you think about it the law monopoly leads to all kind of abuses and is a very inefficient system that doesn't provide good outcomes. If we can bring about competition in law and order it should bring about better outcomes for better overall results and for generally cheaper prices too. It takes a bit of thinking about and obviously I haven't written enough here to convince anyone but I will try to expand on it when I have more time. Meanwhile, there is a great video above that will really make you think twice about the issue above.
The problem you have with Anarchy I think is you will have people who have the potential to thrive in that environment, with certain groups they could then decide they can do very well by for example taking control or not even taking control but exerting influence on certain pieces of infrastructure to earn cash. For example any company running large vehicles moving down a certain stretch of highway will have to pay a monthly fee of 2 million or the road will be closed for a long period of time (take out a large bridge if the money is not paid cutting a national highway). If you cut a highway supermarkets will start running out of food in a couple of days. How long would it take to get a bridge up and running again? You can not protect a thousand Kms of road and bridges with Anarchy. Also the cost of repair would be HUGE.
My take on this is slightly different.
I completely agree with you that X,Y,Z do not have any right to impose punishment on A from your example.
So let's say that B is a homeless person. Well, people will not want a murderer running around. However, the homeless guy didn't have anyone to represent him. But the fact that people will not want a murderer running around means that there will be incentives for getting them off the street. Think about rewards and the like. The old "Wanted" posters. The people most equipped to find the killer are the security companies themselves and with a bit of monetary incentive they will be happy to do so. So what happens when the murderer is discovered. Two possibilities, either he himself has his own security company that operates within the network of security agencies or he doesn't. If he does, it's quite probable that not murdering anyone was part of the initial contract he signed regardless of whether the murdered person was represented by someone else or not. If it was, then he has to go to arbitration and accept the result. If he refuses, his identity is made public, possibly put on a list of offenders maintained by the security companies. This person then becomes someone who is seen as dangerous, unreliable and will have difficulty in the marketplace both finding work and obtaining the the things he needs and wants. People won't want to do business with him. There will be strong incentives for him to go to arbitration and make the situation right (do his time essentially, whatever that means in this situation). If ultimately he decides not to and is still running around, society as a whole may need to get together and find a way to basically put him in a quarantine situation until he can be rehabilitated but this would only ever be a last resort. When someone dangerous was just refusing to face justice. All other avenues must be tried first before someone's rights are violated. But you could say that by violating someone's else's rights he has already put his own at risk. I think this would be rare. Most people would prefer to live in society and partake of it's gifts than not, even if meant doing some penance for a crime they had committed. The incentives not to commit crime would be quite strong, the punishment not so punitive and more importantly, there would be no such thing as victimless crime, like what so much of our so-called justice system of today is caught up in.
I think the word anarchy can be rehabilitated. I completely agree that it has a bad name in the mainstream but the most prominent anarchists that I know, pretty much to a man will label themselves that. Some people want to call themselves voluntaryists or things like that or say that they want to establish a voluntary society. I don't know. I am personally in the camp that is trying to rehabilitate the word. It may turn out to be futile in which case I will go to whatever the community prefers. Ultimately the ideas are what matters, not the labels. The labels are there for convenience.
As for being a practising anarchist, if you mean what I think you mean, I would say it's pretty much impossible at this point. I have to obey the government because most people consider it legitimate. If I don't the government can do what it wants with me and no-one will care, in fact they would probably cheer the government on. So, no, not at this time. I'm under the thrall of a government just like everyone else.
Hawkeye it sounds kinda like you're advocating a social contract
Where everyone would vote to infringe on somebody else's rights because he broke said unwritten contract even though it didn't effect them, because it potentially could in the future
Separate names with a comma.