Possibly been posted a long time ago. Stefan Molyneaux is one of the good moral philosophers. Full video is 48mins long and is one of the many that discuss the role of DRO's (dispute resolution organisations) to replace the role of Government. Covers most questions including Moral basis, DROs, supply of roads, water, education, etc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60veZm9ZbyU One of the simple answers to most people's reaction to the possibility that the basic moral principle [namely, the non-aggression principle that it is "wrong to initiate fraud, force or violence to another person or their property"] cannot be a sound basis for society to operate is succinctly answered at 20:15 and copied here: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iceYdnkRZas[/youtube] [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/6824_statist_or_anarchist.png][/imgz] Edit: Link fixed.
So the whole system relies on DROs which will inevitably evolve into a concentration of power in DROs.
One likely option. No. As stated clearly in the vid (and a gazillion other places). (And even if it did is not an argument against moving towards using DROs - as also stated in the vid.)
Does anarchy mean I do not have to stop at a red light anymore? ...and can I shoot anyone that gives me the shyts?
Of course not. That's the popular myth (along with everyone needing to wear studded leather underwear on the outside). In the political sense, it simply means "without rulers". A society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority. A stateless society. It can even include "collectivist anarchism" (but which is deeply flawed).
" A society without a publicly enforced government" Then who 'enforces' me to stop at a red light? If there is no government that can fine me for not doing so? OC
"You do." Outside the MCG on Grand Final day? ....or the corner of Swanston and Flinders Streets on a friday night?
And don't forget to ask 'who will build the roads.' Every time the concept of a system without a government ruling by holding a gun to your head gets raised it always comes back to the 'it can't be done because people will kill and steal and their won't be any roads. Just free yourself from the forced indoctrnation that you actually need this ruling elite who steal your property in the name of taxation, who steal your mind in the name of government controled education and explore the posibility of what freedom can create. To see the farm is to be free from it.
You're forgetting that pretty much all civil law is essentially dispute resolution (largely related to property rights). Things like not obeying rules of use (running red lights, non-delivery of contracted goods, smoking on aircraft, bringing Dan Murphy's alcohol into a pub/nightclub, trespass of your cattle on my land, etc) are simply property right infringements which can easily be enforced by a range of entities with the main suggested by Stefan being the DROs. You do not have the right to break the rules of use I set while you are on my property just as I don't have the right to break your rules of use. If I want to make you wear a funny hat and take off your shoes before entering my house you should respect that. But conversely I cannot force you to wear a funny hat while I am in your house (but you can insist that I wear a clown nose). This is such a basic concept about property rights and contracts that I am always amazed when people raise these sorts of questions. All business owners have their own protocols and many industries self-regulate or have industry standards for group benefit completely independently of a government. The difference is that arbitrary rules that make no sense, are costly or that consumers do not like are unlikely to be in the benefit of the businesses.
And enforcement can take many forms. An old post of mine: In the absence of religious, genocidal or political wars (which are a significantly different thing) Mad Max style lawless badlands is a myth. The vast majority of people do not want to run around smashing stuff up arbitrarily (if they did we would need a significantly larger police force right now). If we did leave the west to its own devices they would probably be better off with better justice systems. There has been a lot of good research that shows that in the absence of any Government mandated policing and judicial system people will naturally devise their own emergent, self-ordering arrangements. Taking the Hollywood "Wild West" as an example, it turns out it wasn't ever the lawless place we have been led to believe: The way farmers deal with each other, typically without recourse to the courts in the first instance, has been extensively analysed by economists and legal practitioners. A particularly well known study was conducted by Robert C Ellickson in 1991. In Order Without Law: How Neighbours Settle Disputes, Ellickson provides a detailed account of how farmers establish and manage property rights with virtually no formal legal actions. Ellickson's analysis is based on observations of cattle farmers in California but most farmers in Australia will endorse the conclusions drawn by Ellickson. The approach described by Ellickson can be categorised as follows:
For the interested, this video of the 1,000 years that Ancient Ireland operated without Government (up until 17th century) is very worthwhile. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9OqvBbSD0[/youtube] Just to pre-empt any possible assumptions that the ancient Ireland model is viewed by anarchists as likely to have been a form of anarcho-capitalist utopia without any problems, is simply ignoring the reality of human society. Unless the human species changes noticeably, every socio-political system will have wars, mis-use of power, judicial wrongs, corruption, etc and even without knowing much about the ancient Ireland case I'd be very suspicious of anyone who claims otherwise. That a non-government system existed and lasted for numerous generations is highly relevant, however. That the level of wrongs, wars etc increases with increasing intervention by the State in society is also important.
Stop putting labels on peoples thoughts. If I think something, who are you to label it? I have beliefs & thoughts. They are in MY mind. How dare you come & put YOUR label on it. Suck up the white noise....l
Anarchy is a hopless contradiction for three reasons 1. Relationship demands boundaries, and whatever those boundaries are they must be enforced. "Look in the mirror" ??? When someone tries to steal from you or rape you, saying 'no' is public enforcement of moral government. 2. When people cannot protect themselves because of abolation of social/criminal laws (see point 1) they inevitably revert to mob rule (a basic form of governemnt) where 'might makes right' 3. You may abolish money and revert to a barter system, but that simply changes the FORM of capital and currency - from a certificate into a skill - how do you look after disabled people? Anarchy is a complete contradiction and is completely unsustainable and impossible A popular example of my points is found in the series 'The Walking Dead'
Anarchy is a perfect example of a theoretical idea that is brutally assaulted by reality It comes from super-ideological people who ignore evidence - and is extremely dangerous because (like marxism) those committed to it will push and cause violent revolution. An unfortunate reality that Anarchists themselves really cant see because they are blinded by their own grandiose moral superiority (irronically) I know a committed anarchist - and he is seriously scary and capable of serious serious crimes And I would fight his ideology with everything in me because its said there is self government - but it is a masked autocracy of a ruling class (no rules.... IS a rule)
