1&2 - Quite simply you are mixing up extreme pacifism with the actual non-aggression principle where the key word is "initiate". Once someone commits actual or credible threat of aggression then they lose their rights and you are fully justified to respond with appropriate force. This is essentially embodied in common law - a system that you live under right now - so there is no difference in this regard. The issue is that the State itself violates the principles embodied in common law whereas anarcho-capitalism would not tolerate it (as per the multi-generational Irish system). Hence, non-argument. 3. Why you assume the monetary system is non-existant is baffling (especially since you are on a precious metals forum which talks about sound money constantly) and how this relates to disabled people is equally baffling. Very effective, Non-government welfare systems have existed (and still exist today). Stefan (and many others) debunk this fear comprehensively. But even then the benefits of reducing the state-created violence more than outweighs any small increase in social support systems.
The last comment about "no rules" simply says you have no idea what the moral philosophy being discussed really is. There ARE rules. The NAP is a very comprehensive and wide reaching rule. Don't fall for pre-conceptions based on crappy Hollywood notions. In essence, the ten commandments are completely compatible (potentially with a definitional tweak or two). <Edit: Noting that most of the ten commandments are absolutely irrelevant bollocks of course rather than anything about proper ways to interact with others >
This is just a philosophical ramble: If I lack the desire for free-will and self-determination then I will always feel more comfortable in a State directed society rather than one that is based upon any voluntary decision making that is free of any hierarchical decision making. What happens to me under an anarchist state if in doing so (ie lacking any desire for self-determination and self-responsibility) I become a burden on that society or indeed if I become a danger? And who makes that decision, because obviously I will either be indifferent or opposed to it.
Burden = irrelevant. Danger = your rights are subject to being nullified (depending on what your opposition is). Lack of desire = your mum, spouse, kids, etc tells you how to run your life and put your pants on. Jeez. Mountains out of nothing guys All you're saying is "I can't be stuffed thinking about it because that would mean "change" ". Well the Federal Government introduced 12,000 new pages of legislation just last year (not to mention all of the new state govt laws or the regulations etc that can be created by the bureaucracy without going through parliament). Did you keep tabs on what all of those changes meant?
My post was not meant to be negative criticism of anarchy. What I meant by burden was that I see it as critical to an anarchist state the need for everyone to be capable and willing to be self-determined. Some humans are not, therefore they would be a burden. Secondly, regarding danger, who nullifies those rights?
First: Not at all. Besides standard interpersonal relationships, the market is ingenious at solving such information/decision problems. Second: In Stefan's example it's the DRO's. It doesn't have to be though (but the acronym probably relates to a plethora of business or local voluntary organisations). Criminal law is the current system where a person's liberty can be taken away and can be enforced by private police/security with private or locally nominated judges etc.
Its not compatable, dont brush over the contradictions in the worldview NAP is just another name for control A rose by any other name..... its a fantasy, and more like Marx's dilluded worldview complete with strawman assesments of reality than any other worldview.
Maybe you could call it passive agressive principal (PAP) I dont want to obey, I want liberty, not a warped sense of existance which others propigate the name 'freedom' - its no freedom. Its just social molding/manipulation or control Its not the severity of punishment that detures - but the certainty of punishment The only reality is that man tends towards wickedness from birth
This right here is the part that always brings be well back from the edge of the "Anarcho Capitalists". As soon as private police are introduced there will be endemic corruption with bias towards who ever has the most money. Remember the thread "Libertarian Answer to Everything is?" How much do you want to pay. While ever there is some sort of mandated force (which is exactly what a Police "Force" is) wether it is Private or Public then there will be chances for it to be open to abuse. A first step in curbing or at least holding a counter threat to such corrupt force is exactly what the founders of the US Constitution had in mind when they wrote the second amendment (IMO).
An anarcho system would not stop people from having weapons. In fact, there would be no top-down structure capable of imposing gun control. The point is you would be breaking the monopoly on security. Instead of one provider you would have competing services and you can go with the one that you want that provides the services that you want. Maybe you just want a basic service. Maybe you want people physically guarding your house. Maybe you want your own personal bodyguard. It's all up to what you want and what you can afford. You would need professional arbitration organisations to arbitrate any disputes between customers of competing services. This would be necessary otherwise you would have wars, and wars are bad for business. It would be in the arbitration services best interests to be as fair as possible, otherwise no-one will use them. You might say well the rich can just buy the ones they want. No. Because people will just go to security services that don't use the corrupt arbitration. The whole point in these business models would be to get as much volume of business as you can because profit margins would be quite thin. That way you get the best service possible at the best price possible. Quite a contrast to the current system which I would quite happily argue serves the rich and well-connected and no-one else because it is a forced monopoly and at best only has to give an illusion that it is providing good service.
I don't think you will get anywhere if you stick to using the title Anarchy, it has too many negative connotations. Best just to rein in the power and scope of the present Government until they go broke. I don't think you will have any chances of changing Australia either. Probably best to start somewhere fresh or secede from Australia the way the Principality of Hutt River did.
You seem to be trying to put across some concept but I don't really understand what. If you are after completely uninhibited freedom to do as you will with no boundaries then, to me, that is not Liberty. It is simply a stupid and meaningless way to live your life and is a direct path to extinction of the human race as we know it within a couple of generations. The concept of boundaries is what creates true Liberty as it is what creates the moral basis for freedom from aggression. You cannot have freedom from anything without some form of boundary or control. The only moral reason that means that you can be free from someone coming into your personal space breaking your possessions, stabbing your children, raping your wife and locking you up in some dungeon is one that also means that you cannot do the same to others. Morality is boundaries. "Pure" freedom is no boundaries. Pure freedom means you are without morals (ie. amoral). Liberty is freedom with boundaries. Humans naturally have morality and boundaries (we would not be human without such). The boundaries actually give you more freedom as well as purpose as they are what allow progress. They encourage cooperation and trading. They facilitate ingenuity and complex economic development. Without Freedom From... we would have much less Freedom To... Anarchy/Libertarianism/Voluntarism (or whichever other label, following Jis' advice) is a society where we are also free from control by fiat of others who call themselves rulers. Anarchy is a social system where the only valid exchanges are voluntary ones. It is principally the absence of control by others and is a system of self-control. It rejects the concept of political privilege. It means that no individual is superior to another. An anarchist is an individual who is at peace with neighbors and chooses not to use force and coercion to satisfy their needs and wants. Anarchy is self-ownership and self-determination. (In contrast communism is the complete opposite - your life is not yours, your body is not yours, you are nothing more than an bee in a hive.)
I have to say I'm shocked at how many people have taken on the ideas and so what once seemed impossible to me now seems merely improbable.
As soon as security is privatised to the point that laws are enforced by them, there will inevitably be acute corruption. It doesn't really matter what you want or what you can afford because if monies are being paid directly to a certain firm, those clients will get preferential treatment over others. Immediately you would see one car get pulled over for speeding and fined on a private road. Then the next car happens to be driven by a guy that also employs the same company for his big business and personal residence and not fined because he happens to flash his "Group 4 security gold members badge as he hands his licence over. What happens with the defence of the nation?
^ If genuinely interested, personally I'd suggest reading some of the essays that are around on this topic. It's a bit if a cop out but if Hawkeye's response isn't enough then I think much longer answers are required. Worth noting that there are private police forces now (albeit in a hybrid setting where they are under contract from the local council within a state setting) but you can start seeing the transition pathway from real world examples.
You are getting the security firms and the arbitration firms mixed up. As well, as the security firms and those that run the roads I might add. You're thinking basically in terms of the top-down government structure. If there is a corrupt arbitration firm, you just don't go with a security provider that uses that firm. Simple. You have to remember this will be like a web of security and arbitration firms. eg. Sec Firm 1 and Sec Firm 2 might use arb firm 1 for any disputes between their customers Sec Firm 1 and Sec Firm 3 might use arb firm 2 for any disputes. Sec Firm 2 and Sec Firm 3 might use arb firm 3 for any disputes etc Thus if you don't like arb firm 1's rulings , then go with sec firm 3 because they don't use them and any disputes would be dealt with by arb firm 2 or 3. It would be in the best interests of an arb firm to be as fair as possible because that would directly impact how many customers the associated security firms would get. And this game is all about volume due to the competition. This is a world where you can choose to avoid bad service when it comes to security and law. Would there be corruption? Sure, you are never going to wipe it out completely. But the incentives would keep it minimized especially as compared to the current situation. As for the defence of a nation? What's a nation? If you have people attacking your local area the security firms wouldn't like that as they would lose their business. After all, govt is fundamentally a monopoly security provider. But fundamentally, attacking another country is all about attacking the capital and assuming the seat of government. If that doesn't exist, really what would the attackers do? The whole exercise would just be a huge money sink. We can even see that from wars that have been attempted in recent times.
Fundamentally if China decided they wanted to take over Australia and rape it for all it's resources then it would be a walk in the park and relatively inexpensive. 1. We have no government and therefore no allies as a nation. What reason would the US or any current ally have for steping in and helping a country that doesnt deal at a national level with them and is basically just a vwry spread out set of local communities. 2. Private security firms aren't going to band together to fight off a military standing army that has used its very inefficient government to put tanks and helicopters on Australian soil. 3. Australia is a disarmed landmass. If attacked, it would need to have been generations after "anarchy" set in before the sheep decided that self defence was in their own self interest and armed themselves. Recent wars have shown that it is very expensive and very hard to fight a guerrilla style war when the populations they are occupying are armed to the teeth with military weapons and most importantly an almost unlimited supply of military grade explosives. If an Afghani or an Iraqi woke up this morning and decided he wanted to make an IED he could have the bang by lunch time at the latest. Try doing that in Australia. 4. Why assume an invading power wants to assume power of government? Why not simply invade, conquer, enslave and then export? P.S. I wasn't mixing anything up. I wasn't even referring to the arbitration side of it but merely the law enforcement side of it. How does the arbitration have anything to do with the example I gave?
