Again, a conversation betwen TX and I has caused me to start asking more questions.

This one specifically has to do with an anarchist way of life.

A quick quote from Wiki :

"Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government ("state")[1] and supporting its elimination."

It's not just supporting nongovernment and the ideas included that intrigue me... for the most part, it's the illimination.

Yes, that's right illiminating government, removal of "the man", liberation from beurocracy.

HOW does a nation say "no more" to the government?

Eliminating government need not be part of any anarchist idea. While I recognize that government is inherently harmful, impractical, dangerous, and of course absolutely immoral and unjustifiable, I do not advocate instigating violence against the state or those who have become the state. This is an important distinction to make, both intellectually and practically since the latter attitude will get you imprisoned (if you are lucky) in almost every nation on the planet, including and especially the US. Threatening the powers that be is the highest crime in the US, the nation which claims to support liberty..

Your question is flawed in that it asked how a state can say no to the state. It won't even if it could. The real question is how do we choose to live moral lives, opposing oppression, aggression, etc.? We do so by refusing to grant any illusion of legitimacy to those who seek to harm us, be they honest thugs in alleys or the dishonest thugs with badges or offices in the places of power. We choose to be peaceful non-aggressors, we choose to help our neighbors, friends, and family. We choose to honestly interact with others. Quite simply we refuse to become or support those characteristics which define the worst of humanity, those traits which define those who seek and capture power of all sorts, those aspects which define what it means to be a government and as such what it means to be both profoundly arrogant (in seeing oneself as more worth to lead the life of another than the individual whose life it is) as well as evil.

I spoke nothing of violence... however I did think that it would need to take place in order for anarchism to be the "way of the land" so to speak. I may of course be wrong.

But the reason I say so is because...


"We do so by refusing to grant any illusion of legitimacy to those who seek to harm us, be they honest thugs in alleys or the dishonest thugs with badges or offices in the places of power. We choose to be peaceful non-aggressors, we choose to help our neighbors, friends, and family. We choose to honestly interact with others. Quite simply we refuse to become or support those characteristics which define the worst of humanity, those traits which define those who seek and capture power of all sorts, those aspects which define what it means to be a government and as such what it means to be both profoundly arrogant (in seeing oneself as more worth to lead the life of another than the individual whose life it is) as well as evil.."

I don't think we could do these things without the eventually meeting the force of the government in the way OF force.

Eventually, the people with money would pay people to subdue those who do not abide by such laws, (first police, then contras, assassins, ect) and therefore anybody who does not choose to be free will eventually be forced to fight for ones own life, and therefore would need to be violent.

Notice that I spoke of not initiating force. Of course you can and should defend yourself against anyone who threatens you.

You are always fighting for your life. Every choice you make is a fight for your life.

I wouldn't say EVERY CHOICE, but I get your drift.

But, if we inniciate no force, and just ignore the government, basically trading amongst ourselves. Would the government not try to take taxes on these trades, and eventually try to imprisson someon, therefore enticing that person to take action for thier own lives?

I don't mean to speak in circles of course, but to me it seems inevitable that the government would take to arms against people when faced with opposition.

Again, every action is a fight for your life. So yes it could be that someone comes to your home and tries to rob you and you have the choice to defend yourself and those you love or not. Yes government does of course use force and violence as a first line of defense, so there are practical ways to try to minimize your own dangers and exposure. For myself I focus on getting the ideas out there, reminding people about real morality, not this nonsense that politicians (a group which includes priests and other clergy) tell us is morality. If enough people stop buying into the nonsense and realize that they can think for themselves then we stand a chance of taking back the power from those who have taken it.

Now who's "denying human nature"? Do you think people won't seek and gain power so much under anarchy? I know you recognize that they will, but I don't think you recognize the severity. It will necessarily devolve into 'might makes right' (the only way for people to secure power and interests), as nobody is around to enforce your universalistic code of morality. Inherent rights are meaningless if they can't be enforced. We create the government in order to do so, among other things. Economic structures that enable modern industrial society (ie. contract enforcement, ownership rights) are legal creations. South Korea and Japan, or Somalia?

Not to mention, anarchy leads to tribalism, as people will rally together under powerful tribal leaders, eventually reaching statism in the end.

Every action is indeed a fight for your life. We create government to put an end to it.

This post was last modified: 12-23-2006 04:51 PM by Einsteinmonkey.

I agree with Monkey on this, to have an anarchist system, we'd have to do away with those who seek power over others.

Indeed! Governments exist to end life, I quite agree!

What is being yet again completely ignored is the fact that the consolidation remains the core problem. Advocating the consolidation of power in order to prevent the consolidation of power is absurd at the best. You assume that if no one forces others to work together that they will never work together, nevermind the examples all around us..

The argument you offer Emonkey is text book circular reasoning. You assert the existence of government is necessary because the existence of government is necessary.

You might want to check into the situation in Somalia and compare it to when recognized government was in charge. The economic situation has IMPROVED rather than worsened as you assert must be the case. The number of murders has decreased, the opportunities increased..

In no way am I denying human nature, I am recognizing that in refusing to consolidfate power, in refusing to steal liberty from honest innocent people we are not only acting morally, we are lessening the opportunities for those who seek power to achieve their ends. It is infinitely easier to resist the power hungry when they have no more power than you, than it is when you have held a gun to your neighbor's head to force him to pay for your consolidation of power which you grant to those who seek to use and abuse that power.

I recognize and understand the fear you are expressing, that the lack of control over others scares you, but is that really sufficient cause for celebrating and advocating harm to innocent others? Should we kill all blacks because the fact that they exist scare some folks?

Do you have any comments which actually refer to what has been said?

Agreements existed prior to and in spite of governments. That there are legal agreements in no way means that there can ONLY be legal agreements.

If the moral and logical based arguments are not sufficient (which is truly unfathomably, but..) then consider the practical and historical.

Currently you are comparing the worst case illusion of liberty against the empty and false rhetoric of totalitarianism (which is identical to all forms of statism). In another thread we saw X=Not X being asserted as gospel beyond question and clearly it is at the root of the claims here concerning governments. The idea that the very entity which serves to destroy and prevent the individual from having inherent worth (well it tries, we are still worthwhile even as slaves) is the entity which is being hailed as the protector of liberty. This is necessarily a contradiction, but that does not stop some from believing it even when they would not believe in square circles or any other contradiction.

Governments, statists, and politicians claim that they are protecting you and granting to you liberty. But what are the facts? No man is less free than the one under the goverment which claims to dish out liberty. Take the US for example. If you believe the rhetoric, there is no freer place on the planet. Yet, there is no aspect of your life in the US which is not regulated. It is no longer possible to go through a day in the US without violating the law, in no small part because every aspect of life is regulated, but also becaues the laws are themselves contradictory. Why is that? So that power can be increased.. regardless of the action you take you will be subject to arrest and thus directly under the thumb of those in power in such a way that even the apologists for the state cannot deny it (okay some might still try, but it is truly an insane position they find themselves in).

Yet nonetheless the aburd, contadictory, and false illusion that government protects liberty (rape prevents sex, theft prevents theft, etc) remains and is what is being compared here to the equally false notion that liberty is chaos and violence.

As a practical matter if one is interested in honest comparisons, then one must compare like with like. So rather than comparing the utopian false aburd and contradictory claims of government with the overblown, irrational, dire predictions of liberty, compare either the reality of government with the likey reality of liberty, or compare the utopian claims of government with the utopian claims of liberty.

I make no utopian claims myself, rather I look at it morally and practically. The only just course of action is to refrain from employing force against innocent others. This alone necessitates refraining from supporting governments or other usurpers. Practically speaking, the only path that leads to each individual being able to lead the life that they seek to live, in conjunction with others also leading such lives is liberty (the absence of controlling authorities). The only hope of not having organized thugs busting down your door, or invading from afar is to deny the thugs the power to fully organize, disarm the people, restrict conduct, steal life and property, etc.. This means denying the state the power that it must have to grow. This also means that the worst you will face is a small group of individuals, as opposed to a massive overwhelming state against which you cannot act, and which prevents others from coming to your aid.

Yes there will be those who will seek to harm others in the state of liberty. But those exist today. They are common theives and bullies, but they are also uncommon theives and bullies who have at their disposal the lives and abilities of millions of other individuals. The result of the latter is the death of millions, the institutionalized use of torture, imprisonment, and physical harm, as well as the death of dreams, the theft of property, the literal enslavement of entire countries, such as the US.

No change in human nature, no utopian claims, no baseless accusations are present. Just simple verifiable facts, sound reasoning, and an honest desire for liberty for all.

Sounds.. nice.

Yet denying the state the power to grow (money) is also illegal.
Eventually people would be imprisoned or worse.
What I mean to say is that an transition from a governed nation to an anarchist nation would not be easy. Those who have sought out power now have it, and have proven the extremes that they are willing to go to keep it or make it grow.
I am not saying that a civil war would be the answer, but while looking at the denial of the government here in the US, it does seem likely.

Often doing the right thing is not easy. Still I will choose the harder path of working for a living rather than being a thief. I will choose the harder path of being moral over assuming some right to control the life of another. If we never start resisting the evils, then they have won. We of course have to choose our battles and how we fight them. The one thing we must avoid is supporting and advocating the state and the evils inherent to it. Even if we do nothing else but refuse to support and advocate, by which I mean try to offer justification for police, politicians, and the state itself, we at least are not making matter worse.

If we simply talk to others about liberty and take the notion back from the statists, such that we understand that liberty is freedom, not government by others, we are taking the first step towards increasing freedom. We are fighting a battle that while not being without risks, is relatively safe.

We face the choice of doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, or in standing up, calling a spade a spade, and refusing to do harm. There is no guarentee that we will create a utopian free world, but we will have reclaimed ourselves. We will no longer be merely the property of the state; we will once again be individuals who recognize that we are inherently valuable and deserving of respect. Do not underestimate the importance of such self respect.

Consolidation of power will exist wherever there are individuals who seek power.
With a government (multiple branches), self-interests will keep power and individuals largely in check.
Under anarchy, individuals will seek power by whatever means they can, including joining some kind of tribe.

I'm not saying people won't work together under anarchy, they certainly will. All will seek power, however, since that's the only way to secure your interests.

No matter how much you keep asserting this, it's not true. The existence of government is rational because it allows people to spend most of their lives doing things other than trying to make sure your throat isn't slit and you possessions aren't expropriated in the middle of the night.

Because they're exporting everything and living off the land; "due to protests, battles, and the like, it is hard for foreign experts to come into the country." Rocket-launcher toting pirates, and stuff.
"They also successfully implemented an urban and rural literacy campaign, in which they helped to dramatically increase the literacy rate from a mere 5% to 55% by the mid-1980s" is a sure sign of government disaster, right?
Somalia is divided under tribal leadership (sound familiar?), and the current civil war is not going to decrease the number of deaths (for that matter, where are you getting those numbers from?). "Intermittent civil war has been a fact of life in Somalia since 1977."

Har har. Yes, I can't sleep at night because I'm not Dictator of the Universe.

Do you?

Legal agreements mean little if they are not enforced. You might as well pinky swear.

How does it prevent inherent worth?

Demonstrate this, please.

You know, there's liberty within bounds. Anarchy necessarily does involve power struggles which are chaotic and violent, unless you'd like to deny human nature.

Alas, no. The worst you can face (ignoring other countries) is a large tribe, practically a state, and the worst that can happen to you is death, which is more likely.

This post was last modified: 12-24-2006 07:27 AM by Einsteinmonkey.

Both false premises.

As for the circularity, by all means do not take my word for it, simply read the refutations offered and note that in fact your premise IS your conclusion.

For more evidence of this being the lone basis for your position let me quote your premise/conclusions you offer as what I am certian you belief are actually responses:

(This is a particularly keen example of X= Not X)

Notice how this is YOUR CONCLUSION, not a fact nor a basis for YOUR CONCLUSION.

So again I would ask if you have anything which supports your assumption/conclusions, or anything which is relevent to the topic? Or are simple stipulations, accusations, and baseless assertions all that is supporting that particular house of cards? It is telling that in response to carefully developed sound arguments all you offer is the PeeWee Herman tactic: "I know you are but what am I?"

This post was last modified: 12-24-2006 08:23 AM by TXStorm.

You are not responding. Please read your own last paragraph. You have failed to even say why you think certain premises are false, or certain arguments circular.

What you are calling my "conclusion" is not a conclusion, it is a restatement of a premise, based on a structural understanding of anarchy.

The purpose of government is security, not liberty, but without government, you would have neither. You simply can't have liberty without authority, as in our world, rights are meaningless unless tied to some enforcing body.

I am going to guess that you completely missed the irony in your post. You completely ignore all of the arguments and facts already presented, simply restate your conclusion over and over (sometimes as the lone premise as well) without ever once taking anything outside of your position into account. In contrast you can find carefully thought out sound arguments in my own posts (with the possible exception of the last in which I restated the same problems which have been constantly present in your arguments, because you have not as of yet ever even begun to address these fatal errors of fact and reasoning), and yet you claim that I am not responding to your posts... See the irony now?

No matter how often you claim that slavery is freedom, the two will never be identical.

As for your false premises, had you read and responded to the previous posts you would know that evidence and arguments proving the falsehood have already been presented. This is what happens when you fail to take sound reasoning and facts into account. Oh, and since I did not mention it, even the most generous reading of your appeal to consolidation of power being a good thing (and a necessary thing) simply because you falsely believe (seemingly because it is your conclusion) it must exist, results in the observation that this is a form of the is/ought fallacy. Even if it were the case, that is not justification for it being the case. Just to show why this is a logical error, consider the case of rape. It does exist as we well know. Now applying your reasoning, rape is necessary, just, and good simply because it exists. See how the reasoning fails to necessitate a true conclusion?

This still remains not only false, but absurd in the extreme as has been shown already several times. Restating your baseless belief does not make it true or a reasoned position. Are you familiar with the law of non-contradiction? It essentially states that X and Not X cannot both be true at the same time. You STIPULATE as the axiom/conclusion of your argument that slavery is freedom, that government is liberty, which clearly violates the law of non-contradiction. Since whenever a belief (or argument) is contrary to reality, it is the belief (or argument) that MUST be in error, there remains nothing upon which your argument can rest.

BTW It is not clear how you could miss the explanation of how and why your arguments are circular given the number of repititions as well as the fact that the last post which you pretend is not responding is itself an explanation of the circularity of your arguments.

A quick note about the previous post, you assert that checks and balances must necessarily work, yet we have seen quite clearly that they do not (recall that this has already been explained PRIOR to your making this claim again). Do you still want to pretend that I am not refuting your claims? I can continue to bring up examples where you have completely ignored all of the arguments and facts, as well as failed even a single time to employ a sound argument as long as you like. I mention this because I recognize the tactic you are employing and I hoping to nip it in the bud so that the thread can return to the actual topic, and progress where the posts made are actually read and taken into account. Certainly your digging in and yet again repeating your use of the PeeWee Herman tactic is neither productive nor honest.

Here is a link that you might find useful for more indepth explanations of the errors which constitute the whole of your arguments:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

This post was last modified: 12-24-2006 01:20 PM by TXStorm.

Hey, this reminds me of some past discussions in the blog. They certainly became quite... heated.

I believe you guys should both remember that you are coming from completely different - in many ways opposite - premises. TX believes in anarchy. Einsteinmonkey, obviously, doesn't.

My own position? While TX's arguments have certainly made me think about stuff I hadn't considered before (especially the part about, in anarchy, people joining together, voluntarily, in communities, and the part about, even today, going on with our lives peacefully, without granting the government the illusion of legitimacy, and helping each other), I do believe that a small government, Objectivist-style, would be the best choice.

Such a government has limited functions: a police to prevent and punish initiation of force, an army to protect from foreign invasion, courts of law, and nothing more. If they can't grant any special favors, it ends corruption, because there's no point in bribing them. Nor can they legislate morality, make new laws, or interfere with anyone's lives.

I realize that this is utopic; after all, there is already a consitution which should prevent a lot of abuse, and doesn't (though TX will argue that the U.S. Constitution is pro-dictatorship as well).

I have to say, though, that anarchy would require a different humanity than the one we have. Even if I was able to find like-minded people, and joined with them for protection, voluntarily, we would always have to guard against the rest of the world.

This reminds me of zombie apocalypse stories. In many of them, the flesh-eating zombies aren't the biggest problem; the trouble is that a lot of the survivors become violent looters. Any group that manages to survive the undead and starts to build some kind of shelter is, eventually, attacked by looters.

I have no reason to believe that such wouldn't happen in real life, even without the zombies.

This post was last modified: 12-24-2006 09:33 PM by Pedro Timóteo.

Why and how do you believe liberty would require a "different humanity?" We already have to be on guard against the rest of the world (even if we do not think about it now, or do not bother protecting liberty now). The only difference is that there would not be a controlling power telling us the lie that they will protect us, all the while they are robbing us, imprisoning us, and preventing us from enjoying liberty.

As for needing like minded people, quite the opposite is true. One of the great benefits of liberty is that not only does it not necessitate like minded people, it thrives on differences. Where governments regiment the populace to become good little sheep, liberty allows every individual to pursue their own path as best as they can.

You first comment is a bit troubling as it appears to be an accusation of per-exiting bias which assumes that the conclusions are not well founded, but instead are emotion driven. Yes I believe in liberty, but I did not simply wake up one day and say "Hey, I am going to ignore all of reality in order to have this illusion" (which ironically is what one MUST do in order to continnue to support a governmental "solution") Rather I came to it by applying reason to the available evidence. By being willing to actually look at the facts, and realize that the so called solutions have not worked, and more importantly cannot work because of the internal contradictions. The premises may be different, in fact I will agree that they are but the sets of premises are not equal. Whereas I have clearly employed true premises, we have equally clearly seen that Emonkey's premises are not merely false, they are identical to his/her conclusion thus making the arguments of no value whatsoever logically speaking. It is not possible to overstate the importance of such differences. The former approach allows reality and reason to lead to true conclusions, the latter starts and ends with the desired conclusion.

With all else being equal, do we choose to intentionally deny individual liberty, do we choose to intentionally cause unjustifiable harm to innocent others, do we choose to presume our own omniscience and in an act of profound arrogance decree that we are infinitely more valuable than all others, or do we recognize that all individuals are in fact morally speaking equal, that we have no right to dictate the peaceful actions of others, and allow for liberty? Do we simply abandon any hope because it scares us to hope? Do we knowingly choose an undeniable evil because we fear liberty?

As for believing that liberty and cooperation cannot happen in real life, how do you account for all of the activities that we find which are either in spite of the law, or in direct opposition to the law, but are peaceful, voluntary, and cooperative?

And what of the fact that all of the most terrible attrocities committed by humanity have been done at the hands of some government (whether church driven or not)? There simply would not be any Hitler's, Stalins, Bushs, Maos, etc. Well they might exist, but we would not know of them because they would not be able to seize the reins of power, because those reins would not exist. So unless you believe that they could kill 6 million jews in their basement (or greater attrocities) without anyone finding out, we alreay have a dramatic improvement by choosing liberty.

BTW one minor correction, while it is true that the US government has a long and colorful history of supporting dictatorships, I would note that the US Constitution and government is actually pro-totalitarianism as opposed to only pro-dictatorships.

This post was last modified: 12-24-2006 11:32 PM by TXStorm.

Now look. Maybe I'm being utterly dense. Humour me. Please, please, please say (repeat if you've already said it) simply and briefly what your premises are, what my premises/conclusions are, and why my premises/conclusions are false and circular.

This post was last modified: 12-25-2006 05:52 AM by Einsteinmonkey.

As for my own premises I am relying upon the nature of reason, meaning that no fallacies or unsound arguments can be employed to reach the conclusion nor can the law of non-contradiction be violated (soundly). What follows? Well this means amongst other things that such tactics as trying to redefine words (equivocation) to mean something else entirely cannot be used. So claiming that slavery is liberty is right out. Furthermore I note that in fact in order to have a government you must force it upon those who do not wish it. This is necessarily morally wrong. This act alone removes any hint of any justification for the government, though it is far from alone. I am noting that in fact it is easier to ward off smaller threats than larger ones, especially exponentially larger ones. I am noting that the freedom to respond is preferable to the use of force to prevent innocents from responding. I am pointing out that any suggested moral wrong, such as the creation of government, must have a justification, else be abandoned (morally and practically speaking), and that in fact there is no justification presented. I am noting that all of the arguments for government have been shown to be fallacious or otherwise unsound (again these are simply objective standards), and all of the claims made about liberty being impossible are likewise false else the arguments in which they are found unsound.

You begin with the assumption that government is the only solution. Then you restate it repeatedly. You do occassionally include dystopian visions of how government would work, but they rely upon false assumptions about humans suddenly becoming angels when they are granted power. You introduce the notion of "checks" but still relying squarely upon the assumption of power creating angels from filth. Your defense of government includes the assumption that government is the only solution and when pressed respond that any situation without government (aka LIBERTY) does not include liberty (which is clearly simply the assumption that government is the only solution restated). Near as I can tell, nothing at all has been offered which is not a form of the initial premise, which is of course also the conclusion, that government is the only possible path to take to liberty. This despite the fact that the two notions are necessarily contradictory, thus making the conclusion nothing more than a claim that the law of non-contradiction itself is false. If we assume that the law of non-contradiction is false, then all meaning is lost for I could say "barn" but mean "runs up a hill," or "cherry blossom" or literally anything at all. Hopefully this is sufficient reason to not deny the law of non-contradiction, which in turn is sufficient cause to not make contrary to reality claims, or self-contradictory claims, which is in turn sufficient to clear up why the arguments are fatally flawed.

I'm going to refrain from accusations now and simply state my argument since perhaps I did not state it clearly enough earlier.

There are people who will seek power or seek wealth at the expense of others, and everyone is seeking to protect his or her own interests; these are so, regardless of the system. These are premises, ones that you do not dispute.

Anarchy is a stateless society. Anarchists oppose not morality, but imposed morality, believing that people will voluntarily cooperate in the absence of government.

However, there are still people who will seek power or seek wealth at the expense of others. Under anarchy, the predominant method of doing so is by force (eg. mugging someone). Similarly, force must be used to combat this. Since everyone is seeking to protect his or her own interests, even if some individuals have no intention of harming others, they must protect themselves from those who do have such intentions. Every action is, as you have said, a fight for your life. Significant portions of one's life are spent just attempting to protect oneself, which is not particularly productive. This "liberty" amounts to nothing.

For these individuals, the most effective way to achieve their goals is through collaboration; this means joining/creating what is essentially a tribe. Generally, the larger a tribe is, the more power it has. As these tribes grow large enough, they may become states. Efficient division of labour leads to the creation of an army, and officials to oversee it. Some form of government thus rationally comes about.

Life under anarchy is like a large Prisoner's Dilemma: "cooperating" entails that you spend most of your labour on productive activities in the traditional vein of working under capitalism, and "defecting" entails that you spend most of your labour on generally destructive activities like stealing from others. In this light, we create government to ensure that people do not defect so that we can be free to achieve positive things. We create government to provide security which is the solid backing for liberty.

Bad things can happen under governments (varying with the structure of the government; for instance, this is decreased with different branches of government and multiple individuals keeping each other in check, and systematic abuses could be further minimized). However, while bad things happen under governments, under anarchy, worse things would happen with greater frequency in the long-run; life would be much worse. We would not be able to achieve the things we are able to today. The global economy would be nonexistant, for instance. Property rights require enforcement, especially intellectual property rights.

This post was last modified: 12-25-2006 02:09 PM by Einsteinmonkey.

So you admit that you are using "liberty" to simply refer to slavery?

BTW your ASSUMPTION that "significant portions of your life are spent just attempting to protect oneself" remains entirely baselss. You still assume, without basis, that without government then necessarily chaos exists. This too remains a baseless assumption, and one which is essentially circular reasoning.

Your suggestion that only tribes can possibly exist is equally baseless. Why do you assert that this is the only possible outcome?

BTW you claim that "thus rationally some form of government comes about" yet no where have you presented any account of a justification, much less rationality. Certainly there is no element of necessity involved, which of course would be necessary for there to be even the impression of a sound argument.

I realize that you really really want to believe this, but still you have exactly no basis for making these assertions, especially since you present them in a text book example of a false dichotomy.

Even under the most inexperienced, idealistic, utopian view, this is simply absurd in the extreme. First you clearly are asserting X=Not X in asserting that governmental control equals liberty. SLAVERY IS NOT LIBERTY. No number of times of asserting it will make it true. The completely empty government promises of "security" do not make one secure. Who protect us from the government? Who protects liberty from the instituation explicitly designed and created to prevent liberty?

You still have not once accounted for the fact that under liberty we can resist those who seek to cause harm, under anti-liberty (aka government) we are forbidden from defending ourselves either from individuals who will cause us harm, or from the instituations designed to cause us harm and to prevent liberty. You have not addressed the very practical and real issues of preventing the consolidation of power into the hands of those who do indeed abuse it, in fact you have advocated FOR such consolidation then simply asserted that it would be worse if we were more free, more secure, and more able to respond to threats.

As for your "predictions" they remain as baseless as all of your other claims. Do you know what prevents me from starting businesses with friends I have in two other countries? GOVERNMENTS. Yet your claims necessitate that this cannot be true (both from your pretense that slavery is liberty and liberty is created by slavery, and by your claims about the "global economy.")

Governemnt ONLY restrict trade and interaction. They cannot create anything at all, nor honestly even promote anything positive at all. Recall that there is a great difference between ceasing to stop trade and promoting it. Governments can only stop being a barrier, but this is not actually creating a global economy, nor is it promoting a global economy.

What is possible, even necessitated under govvernments? War, shortages, the great depression, national pride and the hate that comes with it, wrecked economies, closed opportunities (not merely economic, but also culturally), stagnation, "legal" crime, vast criminal enterprises (such as those created by prohibition on alcohol and drugs), etc.

Your claims and arguments are still subject to ALL of the previous refutations and observations. You have not accounted for even a single one as of yet. (And you claimed that I was not responding to your posts!!!???) You are still comparing the dire doom and gloom NONSENSE coming from statists about liberty, to the completely absurd "utopian" (Truly it is dystopian) vision of government. You still rely upon those in power becoming angels, thus a fundamental change in human nature. You still seem to have nothing as a premise other than your belief that government is the only option.

Since you deny the Lockean notion of property as part of your position, how is it in your mind that property comes to exist? And since you make noises about "intellectual property" how do you reconcile the fact that so called IP shares almost none of the characteristics of real property, and is in no way decreased when sold, shared, or given away?

What makes you think that everyone must always, will always, and does always value everything identically to you, as must be the case for your claims to even get off the ground?

Why would everyone seek YOUR personal choice of a solution (one which denies liberty while denying the individual) instead of choosing a moral, principled, practical solution instead?

Why do you assume that any cooperation necessitates joining a tribe?

Since you assert none of the infinite other possibilities could even potentially exist, much less work, how do you answer those possibilities? (obviously I do not need to name them or give examples such as Nozick's protection agencies or various insurance possibilities since you would of course never dismiss these without first knowing them quite well)

Why do you assume that anarchists oppose imposed morality? (Which is an absurd notion since morality can no more be imposed than can gravity)

Why do you assume that the most effective way to achieve goals (even the goal of FREEDOM) is to deny freedom to everyone?

Can you make sense of this?

It seems clear that you must not understand the prisoners' dilemma. In the prisoners' dilemma, there are only two options. Under liberty we have infinite choices. In the prisoners' dilemma there is an overriding authority which dictates actions. Under freedom necessarily no such authority can exist.

It's not an assumption, it's a[n intermediate] conclusion.

There is a distinction between government control and government protection of basic rights. A government is an agency which provides (or should provide) compulsory enforcement of written rights. Otherwise, these rights are meaningless. Under anarchy, the "freedom to defend oneself" comes with the "freedom to organize a band of brigands and attack others with impunity". Thus, anarchy subsumes a 'might makes right' principle - power would default to he who had the biggest military or economic muscle, since there would be no agency to automatically vitiate it.

Slavery is unpaid labour, which does not equate with restrictions on one's liberties. The government may interfere with your life, but unless it arbitrarily throws you into a concentration camp, your rhetoric about "slavery" is just empty hyperbole that debases the term and insults the memory of those who actually suffered it.

Do you know what a Prisoner's Dilemma is?
In this case, if A is not spending resources to protect himself, B will take advantage of this and rob him. However, A will anticipate this, and the collective result would be a "cold war" of sorts complete with pre-emptive strikes, since carving out an empire would be the only way to be truly secure. In practice, people will defer to an authority, or one will impose itself on people, thus creating a reconstituted state.

Also, are you literate?

A government cannot produce anything, yes. And this very fact proves you wrong. Since it depends on its constituents to generate wealth, it has vested interest in maintaining the well being of its subjects.

Furthermore, as power-maximizing and balancing agencies, branches of government will balance one another: the judiciary won't try to undermine the legislative, because that would give the executive too much power, and so forth.

In the times before centralization that accompanied the formation of the modern nation state, the land was divided into dozens of fiefdoms distributed by political fiat. Without an effectual system of property rights, only the will of the monarch could enable an individual to possess this or that piece of land. The same thing is happening now with gangs in essentially anarchic environments. Contracts could not be enforced, and a stock market in the modern sense would not exist because it is based on limited liability, which is a creation of the state. The economy is kept operating by an elaborate network of legality and common laws.

You think under anarchy, people WON'T take advantage of the lawlessness to rob, rape, and murder with impunity? Who has the utopian vision? How are you proposing an anarchic situation will proceed?

This post was last modified: 12-25-2006 07:46 PM by Einsteinmonkey.

Emonkey,

You continue to merely assert your conclusions as your premises and declare that they must be true. Never does reality or reason enter into your arguments.

This still assumes the fundamental change in human nature that is core to your scheme. This alone is enough to render the position without merit, but this assumption that all rights derive from government is simply factually wrong. All of our rights exist because we are moral agents, not because some government declares that we have rights.

Okay so the guy who is advocating the use of coercion, mob rule, and direct suppression of all illusions of freedom by an overwheming force created by the consolidation of power stolen from the individual, is claiming that anything less than this is "might makes right?"

You have just described GOVERNMENT but called it by the name of liberty. You have also still completely ignored the checks and balances of reality, where individuals have the right and ability to defend themeselves, as well as the alternatives to governmental coercion already mentioned. Why did you ignore these? Why not address the points already made rather than continue to simply assert your baseless assumptions?

Casting about false assertions and insults does not make your position defensible. Slavery is ownership by another, regardless of labor. Your convenient definition is inaccurate and in fact could easily be shown to still result in the individual being a slave under your scheme, but instead if we use the real meaning of the word we can much more quickly see that in fact since the individual has no say in his own life, since the individual is simply subject to the whim of government in all aspects of his life, since government is presumed to be superior (morally) to the individual and can dictate any action of the individual, as a simple matter of objective fact under your dystopian scheme, all individuals (except those in power) would necessarily be slaves. The real insult lay in denying the value of the individual and the right of self-ownership.

This implied ad hominem speaks infinitely more about your position and your arguments than any of your previous comments.

As I already noted you clearly have no understanding of the prisoners' dilemma, (notice that you failed to address the points raised concerning it) nor of the nature of false dichotomies, again as the issues raised and wholly ignored by you demonstrates.

Okay so you just made the cast that government cannot produce anything, and never gave even a slight justification for your false assertion that I was in error on this. Just as with all of your other claims, the claim is all that you offer. BTW governments do not give a rat's ass about maintaining the well being of the subjects, particularly given that individuals reproduce and will struggle to survive in any condition. COnsider one of the more clear government cases of "being concerned for the well being of its subjects" the prison camps in Nazi Germany. Here in the subjects did virtually all of the work. The camps could not function, certainly not maximized efficiency as you seem to believe is necessary and desireable for governments, without the labor and efforts of the subjects. Yet they killed these same subjects by the millions, starved them as a matter of course, and treated them attrociously always. This is what