Contest: rename anarchism
redrum
and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
the name for our philosophy. "Anarchism", "libertarianism", and
"libertarian socialism" all have accumulated negative associations.
"Anarchists" are seen as bomb throwing lunatics, "libertarian" is (at
least in America) associated with a conservative political party called
the Libertarian Party, and anything with "socialism" in it is seen
through the effects that governmental state socialism/communism has had
on the world. So we need a new name for our ideas. A good start would be
to look at the Latin equivalent of "anarchy" which comes from Greek
("an" meaning "without", "arch" meaning "leader"). I don't know any
Latin, so I can't help there. Any other ideas?
Apple
> I was talking with my psychic a couple days ago about America's future
> and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
> made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
> century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
> the name for our philosophy.
Forget that! Did she give you any lucky lotto numbers?
But seriously, how about Sam Konkin's term Agorism.
It comes from the word 'Agora' meaning 'open marketplace'
and I think it captures the idea of Anarcho-capitalism quite
well(let's face it anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly roll off
the tongue!). Its 'open' as in free, undirected, non-exclusionary,
and the marketplace conjures up the ideas of voluntary exchange,
contract law, property rights, all in a peaceful but vibrant,
prosperous but just society.
kung_fu_l...@my-deja.com
respect"?
chris.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
G*rd*n
| > I was talking with my psychic a couple days ago about America's future
| > and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
| > made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
| > century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
| > the name for our philosophy.
Apple <app...@bellsouth.net>:
| Forget that! Did she give you any lucky lotto numbers?
| But seriously, how about Sam Konkin's term Agorism.
| It comes from the word 'Agora' meaning 'open marketplace'
| and I think it captures the idea of Anarcho-capitalism quite
| well(let's face it anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly roll off
| the tongue!). Its 'open' as in free, undirected, non-exclusionary,
| and the marketplace conjures up the ideas of voluntary exchange,
| contract law, property rights, all in a peaceful but vibrant,
| prosperous but just society.
_Agorism_ will do for the original idea of liberalism, but it
won't cover _anarchism_, since marketplaces don't guarantee
anybody's freedom -- we can have slave markets, as I'm sure
many of the _agorai_ of old did -- and they certainly don't
exclude the idea of a State to defend the property and other
rights of the participants. _Anarkhia_ demands a lack of
rulers altogether. However, do we really need new words?
The fact that words like "anarchism" and "liberalism" are so
abused can be turned to advantage -- when people come to
understand the difference between the original ideas and
what the established authorities, especially the media and
the academic system, have made of them, they can also get an
idea of the extent to which they've been lied to. It might
wake them up a little.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 12/6/99 }
redrum
Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic explanations
that can capture the essence of the philosophy. On one hand, this is
good, because it shows that anarchism doesn't propose simple answers for
complex problems. On the other hand, it's hard to hold a person's
attention to try to explain anarchism to them, especially when that
person has been trained by TV to have a 7 minute attention span at most.
Most people have been trained to have their "knowledge" packaged into
sound bites, and expanding their minds is difficult.
Constantinople
>Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic
>explanations that can capture the essence of the philosophy. On
>one hand, this is good, because it shows that anarchism doesn't
>propose simple answers for complex problems. On the other hand,
>it's hard to hold a person's attention to try to explain
>anarchism to them, especially when that person has been trained
>by TV to have a 7 minute attention span at most. Most people
>have been trained to have their "knowledge" packaged into sound
>bites, and expanding their minds is difficult.
I have no problem explaining my anarchism quickly and succinctly.
Of course it's not your anarchism.
James McGuigan
non-govenmentalism might do the trick.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
_
Even simple truths can seem complex when not fully understood,
Obvious truths can hide in the complexity of even simple truths,
Thus we must endeavour to truly see that which is really there,
For only then beyond our preconceptions can we start to comprehend the
simple truths before us,
And then to understand that which is out of sight we must first comprehend
that which we can see,
-James McGuigan
____________________________________________________________________________
James A. Donald
On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 17:00:27 GMT, na...@na.da (redrum) wrote:
> Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic explanations
> that can capture the essence of the philosophy.
Anarchism is quite simple to explain. Whenever I go in to the details
of my politics with a mainstreamer, I never say "I am an anarchist",
but after I have said a few things they are apt to say "You are an
anarchist!" and immediately they know all the rest of my philosophy.
The reason you guys have trouble explaining it is that what you are
proposing is not anarchy, but that everyone should use nice pleasant
sounding words to describe a system using the same institutions and
mechanisms as recently existent Soviet communism, only this time
around it will be completely different because the same institutions
and mechanisms will be nice instead of nasty.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
EsegG7g0A+YUCGxWH0IYH0O6Pees9fuTPTN1xSjz
4UvXXfPdKG3UypZSyE6GKBjx1Xc4Fjh80Mtq/b3eo
Matt
wrote:
> Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic explanations
> that can capture the essence of the philosophy.
Sure it does. Emma Goldman, Ben Tucker, and Errico Malatesta did it
well.
According to Goldman:
"Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty
unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government
rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as
unnecessary."
According to Tucker:
Anarchism: "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed
by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be
abolished."
Malatesta:
"Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies, strictly
speaking, "without government": the state of a people without any
constituted authority."
To be ultrasimplistic: "no government." I think Tucker's definition is
pretty decent.
I don't think you can put much more into an explanation of 'anarchism,'
because after that point you end up diverging into one-strand of
anarchism (individualist, collectivist, luddite, nihilist, etc.) Then
you have to prove that your strand of anarchism is the "true" anarchism,
and all those other people who want society without government aren't
real anarchists.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
Matt
kung_fu_l...@my-deja.com wrote:
> this may seem simplistic, but what about "personal responsibility and
> respect"?
Too vague. Lots of non-anarchists believe the same things, with more or
less consistency.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
redrum
djar...@usa.net.invalid says...
The last thing we need is infighting among anarchists while the state
bulldozes the people flat. I would tend to think that "no government"
conjures up images of chaos for most people; I would prefer the term
"self government" since that is what anarchy really is: each individual
managing his own life directly and enjoying the fruits of his own labor
directly. What anarchists really mean when they say "no government" is
"no nation state", ie the governmental entity called the nation state. I
tend to explain it in terms of breaking up large hierarchal
organizations into small voluntary organizations. For example,breaking
up a city into neighborhoods who have their own governing boards.
Constantinople
<djarum98-7B1E3A...@news.bu.edu>:
I've long considered to be fundamentally anarchist the
realization that wealth is created despite, not because of, state
interference in the economy. It has become a commonplace that, in
the economic sphere, the state is not only unnecessary but
harmful. But even though that is a popular opinion (though I
realize it's not the most popular opinion), I still consider it
to be a fundamentally anarchist insight. And it provides a strong
basis for arguing deeper anarchism. For if the state is not
only unnecessary but harmful in that one way, then in what other
ways is it?
Matt
wrote:
> The last thing we need is infighting among anarchists while the state
> bulldozes the people flat. I would tend to think that "no government"
> conjures up images of chaos for most people; I would prefer the term
> "self government" since that is what anarchy really is: each individual
> managing his own life directly and enjoying the fruits of his own labor
> directly.
I agree with the idea of self-government, but I don't think it follows
from this concept that self-governing people would enjoy the fruits of
their labor directly. It is far more economical to have a division of
labor, meaning people end up producing things for others and others end
up producing things for them. Therefore, while it is conceivable that
people would directly use what they produce, there is no reason
self-governing people could not voluntarily sell what they produce and
buy what others produce. That way would afford them a much higher
standard of living, and if all the arrangements are voluntary, they are
still self-governing.
> What anarchists really mean when they say "no government" is
> "no nation state", ie the governmental entity called the nation state. I
> tend to explain it in terms of breaking up large hierarchal
> organizations into small voluntary organizations. For example,breaking
> up a city into neighborhoods who have their own governing boards.
Well then you still have government--just many smaller governments
rather than a few big governments. For all their complaining about
hierarchy, anarcho-socialists still can't seem to think outside of a
hierarchical model. In your preferred system, what happens if a person
in neighborhood A murders someone from neighborhood B? If you insist on
territorial sovereigns, it seems like you will need a higher authority
over both neighborhoods in order to apply the law. Or, the neighborhood
governments could go to war, but that is probably not what you want. Or
it could be that there is simply no way to find justice in this system.
Breaking up large governments into many small governments is also likely
to create inefficiencies. If each neighborhood has its own regulations,
taxes, and tarriffs, it will be very difficult to interact with people
outside your neighborhood. It may be that the end result of this system
is *more* government, not less, because people regularly want to deal
with people living under different governments. Thus perhaps they have
to deal with 10 or 15 other governments on a regular basis, even if
their own neigborhood government is small and cozy.
I'm no historian, but I believe one reason for the rise of absolute
monarchy out of feudalism was that the monarch could provide merchants
with standardized law, whereas under feudalism merchants had to pay
taxes to countless little lords and dukes everywhere they went. Thus
your model may end up recreating the nation-state, since people would
support having common laws and taxes over a wide area.
In individualist anarchy there would be no regulations and no taxes
anywhere, so I don't think this would be a problem for us. The only
threat would be if the costs of negotiation are high enough that some
people would be tempted to support a territorial sovereign. I doubt this
would happen on a large enough scale to prevent all the people who don't
want a sovereign from successfully resisting.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
Matt
constan...@my-deja.com (Constantinople) wrote:
> I've long considered to be fundamentally anarchist the
> realization that wealth is created despite, not because of, state
> interference in the economy. It has become a commonplace that, in
> the economic sphere, the state is not only unnecessary but
> harmful. But even though that is a popular opinion (though I
> realize it's not the most popular opinion), I still consider it
> to be a fundamentally anarchist insight. And it provides a strong
> basis for arguing deeper anarchism. For if the state is not
> only unnecessary but harmful in that one way, then in what other
> ways is it?
In what other ways is it harmful? Well, it murders a lot of people for
one thing. You could say that murdering people is destroying wealth,
but that's a stretch.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
Constantinople
>The last thing we need is infighting among anarchists while the
>state bulldozes the people flat.
One problem is that different anarchists define the state
differently, so while they all say they are anti-state, they are
in fact against different things. The oatmeal anarchist Gordon
appears to believe that capitalists are the state, but I don't.
You appear to believe that local government is not the state, but
as Matt points out not everyone shares that view.
So we all do not really oppose the same things, even though we
all say we oppose the state.
Constantinople
<djarum98-5E10E7...@news.bu.edu>:
That was not the direction my argument was going in, but since
you bring it up it's not a stretch at all. Longevity is wealth. A
person could sink his entire fortune into extending his lifespan.
That's a legitimate use of his money.
Wealth is a very general concept. It's true that longevity is not
*transferrable*, but transferrable wealth is only one kind of
wealth.
Constantinople
<djarum98-5E10E7...@news.bu.edu>:
>In article <8ED29FEFFf2...@209.99.56.11>,
>constan...@my-deja.com (Constantinople) wrote:
>
>> I've long considered to be fundamentally anarchist the
>> realization that wealth is created despite, not because of,
>> state interference in the economy. It has become a commonplace
>> that, in the economic sphere, the state is not only
>> unnecessary but harmful. But even though that is a popular
>> opinion (though I realize it's not the most popular opinion),
>> I still consider it to be a fundamentally anarchist insight.
>> And it provides a strong basis for arguing deeper anarchism.
>> For if the state is not only unnecessary but harmful in that
>> one way, then in what other ways is it?
>
>In what other ways is it harmful? Well, it murders a lot of
>people for one thing.
Of course, but most everyone thinks it is necessary, and it is a
bit more difficult to demonstrate that it is unnecessary and *on
balance* harmful, than to demonstrate that in some ways it is
harmful.
Constantinople
<8ED297171f2...@209.99.56.11>:
Oh, and something else that must be demonstrated is that the
state can't be fixed, so it doesn't just happen to be, at the
moment, harmful.
G*rd*n
na...@na.da (redrum):
| Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic explanations
| that can capture the essence of the philosophy. On one hand, this is
| good, because it shows that anarchism doesn't propose simple answers for
| complex problems. On the other hand, it's hard to hold a person's
| attention to try to explain anarchism to them, especially when that
| person has been trained by TV to have a 7 minute attention span at most.
| Most people have been trained to have their "knowledge" packaged into
| sound bites, and expanding their minds is difficult.
I haven't had a problem with people understanding roughly
what I'm talking about. Getting them to think such ideas
are interesting, realistic, feasible, or desirable may be
a bit more of a problem.
Eric C. Sanders, D.D.
>Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic explanations
>that can capture the essence of the philosophy.
Dunno about that - how about "no coercion"? "Everything
voluntary"? If those are not the essence of anarchy, then I guess I'd
better step on down the street to the next vendor...
> On one hand, this is
>good, because it shows that anarchism doesn't propose simple answers for
>complex problems. On the other hand, it's hard to hold a person's
>attention to try to explain anarchism to them, especially when that
>person has been trained by TV to have a 7 minute attention span at most.
>Most people have been trained to have their "knowledge" packaged into
>sound bites, and expanding their minds is difficult.
Eric C. Sanders D.D.
"in the Land of Mordor
where the Shadows lie"
Rhys
Ask around and I'm sure SOMEONE will know. Teachers, grandparents (if
they're Catholic), or priests...
"redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in message
news:s9q5hj...@corp.supernews.com...
> I was talking with my psychic a couple days ago about America's future
> and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
> made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
> century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
Michael S. Lorrey
>
> I was talking with my psychic a couple days ago about America's future
> and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
> made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
> century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
> the name for our philosophy. "Anarchism", "libertarianism", and
> "libertarian socialism" all have accumulated negative associations.
> "Anarchists" are seen as bomb throwing lunatics, "libertarian" is (at
> least in America) associated with a conservative political party called
> the Libertarian Party, and anything with "socialism" in it is seen
> through the effects that governmental state socialism/communism has had
> on the world. So we need a new name for our ideas. A good start would be
> to look at the Latin equivalent of "anarchy" which comes from Greek
> ("an" meaning "without", "arch" meaning "leader"). I don't know any
> Latin, so I can't help there. Any other ideas?
How about antiarchism, or kallistism?
Don't know how much you guys know about transhumanism and extropianism,
but they are very forward thinking, with significant
anarchistic/libertarian tendencies. See www.extropy.org
I do say that libertarian ideas are getting lots of play these days in
the US, and being libertarian is seen as cool and smart by most except
for those still addicted to big government socialism. Its the primary
political movement of the internet.
Mike Lorrey
redrum
djar...@usa.net.invalid says...
>> conjures up images of chaos for most people; I would prefer the term
>> "self government" since that is what anarchy really is: each
individual
>> managing his own life directly and enjoying the fruits of his own
labor
>> directly.
>
>I agree with the idea of self-government, but I don't think it follows
>from this concept that self-governing people would enjoy the fruits of
>their labor directly. It is far more economical to have a division of
>labor, meaning people end up producing things for others and others end
>up producing things for them. Therefore, while it is conceivable that
>people would directly use what they produce, there is no reason
>self-governing people could not voluntarily sell what they produce and
>buy what others produce. That way would afford them a much higher
>standard of living, and if all the arrangements are voluntary, they are
>still self-governing.
When I meant "directly" I meant without having intermediaries such as
bosses. Under capitalism, the fruits of people's labors goes to a boss
who parcles some of it out as salaries and keeps the rest as profit.
>
>> What anarchists really mean when they say "no government" is
>> "no nation state", ie the governmental entity called the nation
state. I
>> tend to explain it in terms of breaking up large hierarchal
>> organizations into small voluntary organizations. For
example,breaking
>> up a city into neighborhoods who have their own governing boards.
>
>Well then you still have government--just many smaller governments
>rather than a few big governments. For all their complaining about
>hierarchy, anarcho-socialists still can't seem to think outside of a
>hierarchical model.
Such is the extent to which hierarchy has infected the thinking of all
of us. We are literally immersed in the capitalist nation state system.
We have been since birth. That way of thinking eventually becomes as
natural as breathing. Anarchy requires a totally new way of thinking.
That's probably why anarchy has never really enjoyed wide
popularity-people simply can't make the leap of intuition required for
it to work. But history has shown us that people CAN think
anarchistically-look at the Native Americans of North America before the
invasion of the whites. An interesting book to read is _The Gifts of the
Jews_ by Thomas Cahill. While it's not about anarchy, it does show how a
certain system of thought can become second nature.
In your preferred system, what happens if a person
>in neighborhood A murders someone from neighborhood B? If you insist
on
>territorial sovereigns, it seems like you will need a higher authority
>over both neighborhoods in order to apply the law. Or, the
neighborhood
>governments could go to war, but that is probably not what you want.
Or
>it could be that there is simply no way to find justice in this system.
True. It is known that worker's councils have shown up in nearly every
attempt at anarchy. It's possible that over time the councils could
evolve into a government, but we really don't know since we've never
gotten that far.
Matt
wrote:
> In article <djarum98-AED729...@news.bu.edu>,
> djar...@usa.net.invalid says...
[snip]
> > In your preferred system, what happens if a person
> >in neighborhood A murders someone from neighborhood B? If you
> >insist on territorial sovereigns, it seems like you will need a
> >higher authority over both neighborhoods in order to apply the law.
> >Or, the neighborhood governments could go to war, but that is
> >probably not what you want. Or it could be that there is simply no
> >way to find justice in this system.
> True. It is known that worker's councils have shown up in nearly every
> attempt at anarchy. It's possible that over time the councils could
> evolve into a government, but we really don't know since we've never
> gotten that far.
Your answer does not seem responsive to me. The issue in question above
is not whether workers' councils would evolve into a government, but how
conflicts are resolved in the system you suggested.
And strangely, here you worry about a government forming, yet earlier
you advocated "governing boards." Is your idea of anarchy just changing
the size of the government, not getting rid of government? If so, I
don't understand why you call yourself an anarchist.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
redrum
djar...@usa.net.invalid says...
I don't know. I'm not being very consistent here, am I? It just goes to
show how infected we all are with the hierarchal/governmental mindset. I
want to get rid of government, but we have to have some way of resolving
disputes between people besides feuds.
Constantinople
Good, but it should be voluntary, not imposed. It can be
voluntary. Two people can agree to have all future disputes
settled by some third party. Of course there are a lot of pairs
of people, but a person can, say, hire an agent who comes to that
kind of agreement for all his clients with other agents. If a
dispute arises between two parties who have not yet agreed on who
will resolve disputes, I think there chould be sufficiently
impartial courts that they would both agree to have their dispute
settled in one or another of the courts. If one of them is
reluctant to have a dispute settled in any court at all, that
suggests he is conscious of the fact that he is in the wrong. But
I think most people do not want to get away with wrongs, and so
would come into a conflict only when they genuinely thought they
were right, and would be willing to test their claim before an
impartial court.
As for the criminals who do not want to take their case before
any court, they would make trouble, but they already make trouble,
and that does not cause social collapse.
--
"The most important function of economics as a discipline is its
didactic role in explaining the principle of spontaneous order."
-- Buchanan
James A. Donald
On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 05:59:22 GMT, na...@na.da (redrum) wrote:
> When I meant "directly" I meant without having intermediaries such as
> bosses. Under capitalism, the fruits of people's labors goes to a boss
> who parcles some of it out as salaries and keeps the rest as profit.
Nothing stops you from doing things differently. Businesses do exist
in the form of partnerships of several equal partners.
But for the most part people choose to do things this way. If you
have ever tried to get a decision out of a committee, you will see
why.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
R4hbyxmdtFi5kA1XcuXQVMZzUwQtEYGVTrsb74Ix
4vDpuOzIeLxueYeOMNVhMwgbl7O7pkYn7F1dhZ53W
Greg Bane
redrum <na...@na.da> wrote in message
news:s9q5hj...@corp.supernews.com...
> and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
> made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
> century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
> the name for our philosophy. "Anarchism", "libertarianism", and
> "libertarian socialism" all have accumulated negative associations.
> "Anarchists" are seen as bomb throwing lunatics, "libertarian" is (at
> least in America) associated with a conservative political party called
> the Libertarian Party, and anything with "socialism" in it is seen
> through the effects that governmental state socialism/communism has had
> on the world. So we need a new name for our ideas. A good start would be
> to look at the Latin equivalent of "anarchy" which comes from Greek
> ("an" meaning "without", "arch" meaning "leader"). I don't know any
> Latin, so I can't help there. Any other ideas?
>
hire any government employee's.
Apple
Just call it democracy. (little 'd' ) Everybody likes that. Then just don't
hire any government employee's.
If anything its what Smith called Pizzacracy or what someone
has suggested calling Hyper-democracy(a term I find somewhat
dubious).
PS. Pizzacracy as you might of guessed it was coined one night
at a pizza joint. The idea was that you could split a pie with someone
if you wanted to but you didn't have to. You paid for what you ate and
if you didn't eat you didn't have to pay. And if you chose to leave you
just picked up your slice and left.
There's an interesting if not long winded essay on
the subject at:
The Tyranny
of Democracy, by L. Neil Smith
Greg Bane
Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87mmel$1j...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> In article <s9srm9...@corp.supernews.com>, na...@na.da says...
> >
> >In article <djarum98-2AE3FE...@news.bu.edu>,
> >djar...@usa.net.invalid says...
> >
> >I don't know. I'm not being very consistent here, am I? It just goes to
> >show how infected we all are with the hierarchal/governmental mindset. I
> >want to get rid of government, but we have to have some way of resolving
> >disputes between people besides feuds.
>
> Good, but it should be voluntary, not imposed. It can be
> voluntary. Two people can agree to have all future disputes
> settled by some third party. Of course there are a lot of pairs
> of people, but a person can, say, hire an agent who comes to that
> kind of agreement for all his clients with other agents. If a
> dispute arises between two parties who have not yet agreed on who
> will resolve disputes, I think there chould be sufficiently
> impartial courts that they would both agree to have their dispute
> settled in one or another of the courts. If one of them is
> reluctant to have a dispute settled in any court at all, that
> suggests he is conscious of the fact that he is in the wrong. But
> I think most people do not want to get away with wrongs, and so
> would come into a conflict only when they genuinely thought they
> were right, and would be willing to test their claim before an
> impartial court.
>
> As for the criminals who do not want to take their case before
> any court, they would make trouble, but they already make trouble,
> and that does not cause social collapse.
>
There goes the Anarcho-Capitalist again, dragging a third party into a
personal dispute. Courts don't find the TRUTH, and courts can't provide
JUSTICE.
All courts do is decide a matter. In an adversarial system where only the
two polarized sides are argued, TRUTH and JUSTICE must take a back seat to
exaggeration and dirty tricks. In any dispute involving only two parties
there is no need to involve a third. If you believe in personal freedom, as
any Anarchist would, why would you suggest that people subjugate
themselves.
If people have a dispute they should be independent minded enough to resolve
it themselves. The 'murderer' as cited in this thread is probably just a
good Anarchist resolving a personal dispute.
Most disputes involve many sides. These disputes are best handled at open
meetings where the people involved may discuss possible solutions. An
example would be a soapbox strategically located in the middle of a commons
area. Whomever's standing on the soapbox would have the right to be heard.
Possible solutions to any problems could be adopted or discarded by
individuals as fit their needs.
Anarcho-Capitalists always want to unnecessarily complicate life. In Life
there are always disputes, not all of which even need to be resolved. When
they do, a wise man will consult with all involved parties and find the
best solution.
I have friends and I have enemies. This is life. I associate with my
friends and try to avoid my enemies. I am an Anarchist.
Steve Smith
"Apple" <app...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:389D26F1...@bellsouth.net...
> redrum wrote:
>
> > I was talking with my psychic a couple days ago about America's future
> > and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
> > made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
> > century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
> > the name for our philosophy.
>
> But seriously, how about Sam Konkin's term Agorism.
> It comes from the word 'Agora' meaning 'open marketplace'
> and I think it captures the idea of Anarcho-capitalism quite
> well(let's face it anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly roll off
> the tongue!). Its 'open' as in free, undirected, non-exclusionary,
> and the marketplace conjures up the ideas of voluntary exchange,
> contract law, property rights, all in a peaceful but vibrant,
> prosperous but just society.
>
Hmmm, that's better than Voluntarism. But the problem with renaming
anarchism is the same problem with renaming selfishness. Many people say
that Rand's book, "The virtue of Selfishness should have been The virtue of
rational Self Interest, or something like that. The problem is that
eventually your oppenents are going to say,rightly, "He just means
selfishness!". If we renamed anarcho-capitalism to agorism, we wouldn't win
any more conversions in the long run because our opponents would say,
rightly, "He just means anarchism!"
Steve Smith
"Greg Bane" <greg...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:lbQn4.21324$n8.6...@newscene.newscene.com...
Modern courts are not anarcho-capitalist courts. Giving modern courts
as an example of how an anarcho-captialist court system would be is like
giving the DMV as an example of how anarcho-capitalist identity verification
systems and road management would be.
> If people have a dispute they should be independent minded enough to
resolve
> it themselves. The 'murderer' as cited in this thread is probably just a
> good Anarchist resolving a personal dispute.
>
> Most disputes involve many sides. These disputes are best handled at open
> meetings where the people involved may discuss possible solutions. An
> example would be a soapbox strategically located in the middle of a
commons
> area. Whomever's standing on the soapbox would have the right to be
heard.
> Possible solutions to any problems could be adopted or discarded by
> individuals as fit their needs.
>
That is one way of doing it. And if you can pull it off in a free
society be my guest. I'd rather use a court system.
> Anarcho-Capitalists always want to unnecessarily complicate life. In Life
> there are always disputes, not all of which even need to be resolved.
When
> they do, a wise man will consult with all involved parties and find the
> best solution.
>
That is a better idea on how to solve disputes. One which has been used
and will be used. Using men with a reputation for fair judgement in
disputes is an excellent idea. I just think the wise man would be wise to
charge for the service. It would certainly be worth it to the parties who
come to him to pay a modest fee for a fair judgement.
James McGuigan
national spending, law, police, education. anarchism to work then all these
functions will have to be taken upon the individual or group. The reason the
govenment has all these "responcibilities" is that at some time in the past
the population basically said that they didn't want the responcibility and
gave it to the govenment. Now if anarchism was to be impimented then we as
individuals would have to take back these responcibilities.
I may be different to many anarchists when I say I don't hate govenment, or
think govenment can't work. What I think is that current goenments are
filled with incompitent burocrats, money grabbing officals, and often
infulenced by vested intrests and also contoled by those behind the
limelight ("the poeple really in power"). And demoracy is simply an abusable
safegard against tyranny, which often fails and just makes it look nice - it
doen't really affect those really in power as it will just change the face
of their puppet. There are so many sheep in politics that it is not wonder
that those men in society who have evil intentions toward society can and do
get into govenment and rise in it and become the shepards. Govenment has
been used for centuries if not millenna as a control mechinsm. Thus
govenment itself is not evil but has become a tool of evil by allowing
itself to be controled by evil.
I believe the abolition of govenment is a going to abolish an existing
contol mechism which is a step in the right direction but will not
compleatly solve the problem. Groups like the freemasons (they are
compleatly non-govenmental) have had as members over half the US presidents.
I believe for anarchism to work then the first thing to do after the
abolition of govenment is to find all these hidden control mechisms and rout
them out before they can find new control mechisms. The main problem to
keeping anarchism from degrading back into another form of govenment would
be getting rid of these control mechisms. The main problem is sanity, if
everyone was compleatly sane then there would be very few problems as people
would act for the best. Insanity (and I'm not talking about disorders) will
cause chaos. It will really take people to become thier own shepards and not
just sheep. For some this will be hard, for others impossible at first as
they are too weak to lead themselves and try to find someone willing to be
their shepard for them just like the old system.
Anarchism is by far the most sane system I have come across. But like any
system it can be abused, with anarchism it is harder to abuse. If we all
take enough responsibility to make it work then it will work and we can be
free. But we better be carful that the contol mechisms of govenment arn't
just shifted to somewhere else and kept going. Any system could work, even
communism but anarchism is the system I believe that we can all be the most
free and thus the most sane and effective when it has been established. If
everone works to make it work then it will work. And if it does work then
those who want to abuse people will be seen for who they are and outcast not
put in a position of authority. Anarchism will work and allow us to be free.
But the abolition of govenment will not abolish those who wish to have us as
slaves. The tribal warlords of old have not disapeared just changed into
govenments. These people will not go away unless we see them for who they
are and act acordingly. The whole system has been set up to keep us
enslaved, don't think that the slave drivers are just going to sit back as
we take off our chains, they won't. Man is basically good and anarchism will
work because of that. The system is based on agreements, all we have to do
is change them. But we are the few who must take on the whole system, which
has been so engrained in people that somtimes fail to see what it achieves.
They are in a world based on rules and because of that they will never be as
fast or as strong as you can be - The Marix.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
_
Even simple truths can seem complex when not fully understood,
Obvious truths can hide in the complexity of even simple truths,
Thus we must endeavour to truly see that which is really there,
For only then beyond our preconceptions can we start to comprehend the
simple truths before us,
And then to understand that which is out of sight we must first comprehend
that which we can see,
-James McGuigan
____________________________________________________________________________
Constantinople
You do exactly the same thing.
>Courts don't find the TRUTH, and courts can't provide
>JUSTICE.
>All courts do is decide a matter. In an adversarial system where only the
>two polarized sides are argued, TRUTH and JUSTICE must take a back seat to
>exaggeration and dirty tricks. In any dispute involving only two parties
>there is no need to involve a third.
So why do you involve a third?
>If you believe in personal freedom, as
>any Anarchist would, why would you suggest that people subjugate
>themselves.
>
>If people have a dispute they should be independent minded enough to resolve
>it themselves. The 'murderer' as cited in this thread is probably just a
>good Anarchist resolving a personal dispute.
I don't recall any murderer in the thread, but you seem to be
suggesting that murderers should get away with murder.
>Most disputes involve many sides.
What does that mean? Many parties, not just two?
>These disputes are best handled at open
>meetings where the people involved may discuss possible solutions.
What do you mean by open meetings? I think you mean third parties
can come in.
>An
>example would be a soapbox strategically located in the middle of a commons
>area.
A commons area? You want to involve third parties.
>Whomever's standing on the soapbox would have the right to be heard.
Be heard by whom? By third parties.
>Possible solutions to any problems could be adopted or discarded by
>individuals as fit their needs.
>
>Anarcho-Capitalists always want to unnecessarily complicate life. In Life
>there are always disputes, not all of which even need to be resolved.
A lot of people want to resolve disputes. That's why they take each
other to court.
>When
>they do, a wise man will consult with all involved parties and find the
>best solution.
A wise man will do this? He's playing the role of an impartial judge.
>I have friends and I have enemies. This is life. I associate with my
>friends and try to avoid my enemies. I am an Anarchist.
Nobody's forcing you to take anyone to court.
Apple
> Hmmm, that's better than Voluntarism. But the problem with renaming
> anarchism is the same problem with renaming selfishness. Many people say
> that Rand's book, "The virtue of Selfishness should have been The virtue of
> rational Self Interest, or something like that. The problem is that
> eventually your oppenents are going to say,rightly, "He just means
> selfishness!". If we renamed anarcho-capitalism to agorism, we wouldn't win
> any more conversions in the long run because our opponents would say,
> rightly, "He just means anarchism!"
I hear you but the problem with 'anarcho-capitalism' is that
most people have never heard of it. And if you call it Anarchism
then you have to explain how you can be an anarchist and not
be either a commie or the Unabomber!
Marcin Tustin
Hash: SHA1
Before I get denounced as a capitalist, I am a communist,
but
I think that anarcho-capitalists have had the most thoughts on
this matter.
In article <lbQn4.21324$n8.6...@newscene.newscene.com>,
greg...@novia.net says...
[snip]
> There goes the Anarcho-Capitalist again, dragging a third
> party into apersonal dispute. Courts don't find the TRUTH,
> and courts can't provideJUSTICE.All courts do is decide a
> matter. In an adversarial system where only thetwo
> polarized sides are argued, TRUTH and JUSTICE must take a
> back seat toexaggeration and dirty tricks. In any dispute
> involving only two partiesthere is no need to involve a
> third. If you believe in personal freedom, asany Anarchist
> would, why would you suggest that people
> subjugatethemselves.
The fact is that TRUTH and JUSTICE are abstractions.
People
want conflicts resolved, fairly, to standard that they knew
beforehand. As to "subjugate" people would submit to a court
because they have, once they decide to go to court, or perform
an act likely to start litigation, they are dutybound to play
by the rules to the end, or withdraw from *society* (not
territory) where such is the requirement.
Credit rating agency type setups could be brought in to
exclude people from certain voluntary organisations. Afterall,
this is just, unless you have an absolute right to my society;
after all, if you want to be a member of the muslim community,
then you have to refrain from wandering into the mosque eaten
your bacon sandwiches and drinking beer.
> If people have a dispute they should be independent minded
> enough to resolveit themselves. The 'murderer' as cited in
> this thread is probably just agood Anarchist resolving a
> personal dispute.
Be good anarchists and wear good little anarchist hats
and
swear allegiance to the anarchist flag.
> Most disputes involve many sides. These disputes are best
> handled at openmeetings where the people involved may
> discuss possible solutions. Anexample would be a soapbox
> strategically located in the middle of a commonsarea.
> Whomever's standing on the soapbox would have the right to
> be heard.Possible solutions to any problems could be adopted
> or discarded byindividuals as fit their needs.
So kangaroo courts where the person with the most
friends,
who throws the best parties wins, are fairer than a
professional or semi-professional arbitration service.
In the USSR they tried "comrades courts" in the 1960's.
They
had to be stopped because of all the classic failings of mob
justice (inappropriate penalties, unfair decisions).
> Anarcho-Capitalists always want to unnecessarily complicate
> life. In Lifethere are always disputes, not all of which
> even need to be resolved. Whenthey do, a wise man will
> consult with all involved parties and find thebest solution.
Often best if the wise man doesn't have a vested
interest,
though.
> I have friends and I have enemies. This is life. I
> associate with myfriends and try to avoid my enemies. I am
> an Anarchist.
- --
Humanity will not be happy until the day when the
last bureaucrat has been hanged with the guts of
the last capitalist.
Marcin Tustin
PGP Key at
http://freespace.virgin.net/marcin.tt/marcintustin.txt
Due to losing my Virgin.net pass, I willnot be able to update
the above file. Watch for new address.
Mar...@mindless.REMOVEGOATS&OATS.com
Marcint@^^refreshmagazine.com.nomail
KeyID 0x86D72550
Fingerprint DDD9 FB07 4C2F 9A79 C860 C391 D672 364C 86D7 2550
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBOKBJMdZyNkyG1yVQEQIIHACgqPGKeGH7VQ5D/gACH6HnymzJXAwAoMPy
OdWS/+1l3oMzGa1LwCS/JRph
=44fz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Friedman
anyone mentioned Robert Lefevre's solution to the problem? He used the
term "autarchy," on the grounds that we were describing a system where
each person ruled himself.
--
David Friedman
http://www.best.com/~ddfr
Ruben
(Constantinople) wrote:
>na...@na.da (redrum) wrote in <s9ra5b...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic
>>explanations that can capture the essence of the philosophy. On
>>one hand, this is good, because it shows that anarchism doesn't
>>propose simple answers for complex problems. On the other hand,
>>it's hard to hold a person's attention to try to explain
>>anarchism to them, especially when that person has been trained
>>by TV to have a 7 minute attention span at most. Most people
>>have been trained to have their "knowledge" packaged into sound
>>bites, and expanding their minds is difficult.
>
>I have no problem explaining my anarchism quickly and succinctly.
>Of course it's not your anarchism.
Not what may be called a contribution to the discussion
ruben (A)
Ruben
wrote:
> --
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 17:00:27 GMT, na...@na.da (redrum) wrote:
>> Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic explanations
>> that can capture the essence of the philosophy.
>
>Anarchism is quite simple to explain. Whenever I go in to the details
>of my politics with a mainstreamer, I never say "I am an anarchist",
>but after I have said a few things they are apt to say "You are an
>anarchist!" and immediately they know all the rest of my philosophy.
The same goes for me
>The reason you guys have trouble explaining it is that what you are
>proposing is not anarchy,
We don't have any trouble explaining anarchy
>but that everyone should use nice pleasant
>sounding words to describe a system using the same institutions and
>mechanisms as recently existent Soviet communism, only this time
>around it will be completely different because the same institutions
>and mechanisms will be nice instead of nasty.
Perhaps this is the way you thought when you were a Maoist
ruben (A)
Ruben
wrote:
>In article <s9ra5b...@corp.supernews.com>, na...@na.da (redrum)
>wrote:
>
>> Problem is, anarchism doesn't lend itself to simplistic explanations
>> that can capture the essence of the philosophy.
>
>Sure it does. Emma Goldman, Ben Tucker, and Errico Malatesta did it
>well.
And some of the posters here as well
>According to Goldman:
>
>"Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty
>unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government
>rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as
>unnecessary."
>
>According to Tucker:
>
>Anarchism: "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed
>by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be
>abolished."
I like Tucker's definition, though the part that says "and that the
State should be abolished." is redundant.
>Malatesta:
>
> "Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies, strictly
>speaking, "without government": the state of a people without any
>constituted authority."
According to what i know of Greek, the etimology of the word Anarchy
does not include the concept of "government", but of "rulers" or
"official leaders". So Anarchy would mean "without rulers" or as i
like to say: "nobody is in command".
>To be ultrasimplistic: "no government." I think Tucker's definition is
>pretty decent.
>
>I don't think you can put much more into an explanation of 'anarchism,'
>because after that point you end up diverging into one-strand of
>anarchism (individualist, collectivist, luddite, nihilist, etc.) Then
>you have to prove that your strand of anarchism is the "true" anarchism,
>and all those other people who want society without government aren't
>real anarchists.
>
>--
>Matt (djar...@usa.net)
regards, ruben (A)
redrum
says...
>
>
>"Greg Bane" <greg...@novia.net> wrote in message
>news:lbQn4.21324$n8.6...@newscene.newscene.com...
>>
a
>> personal dispute. Courts don't find the TRUTH, and courts can't
provide
>> JUSTICE.
>> All courts do is decide a matter. In an adversarial system where
only the
>> exaggeration and dirty tricks. In any dispute involving only two
parties
>> there is no need to involve a third. If you believe in personal
freedom,
>as
>> themselves.
>>
>
> Modern courts are not anarcho-capitalist courts. Giving modern
courts
>as an example of how an anarcho-captialist court system would be is
like
>giving the DMV as an example of how anarcho-capitalist identity
verification
>systems and road management would be.
>
>resolve
>> it themselves. The 'murderer' as cited in this thread is probably
just a
>> good Anarchist resolving a personal dispute.
>>
open
>> meetings where the people involved may discuss possible solutions.
An
>> example would be a soapbox strategically located in the middle of a
>commons
>> area. Whomever's standing on the soapbox would have the right to be
>heard.
>> individuals as fit their needs.
>>
>
>society be my guest. I'd rather use a court system.
>
Life
>> there are always disputes, not all of which even need to be resolved.
>When
>> they do, a wise man will consult with all involved parties and find
>> best solution.
>>
>
> That is a better idea on how to solve disputes. One which has been
used
>and will be used. Using men with a reputation for fair judgement in
>disputes is an excellent idea. I just think the wise man would be wise
to
>charge for the service. It would certainly be worth it to the parties
who
>come to him to pay a modest fee for a fair judgement.
In tribal societies there is usually a recognized arbitrator who solves
disputes. Sometimes it's a chieftain, sometimes it's an elder or a
council of elders. People want fair judgement on issues. Even in
societies which have gone the route of "solve it yourself or get in a
feud" they have eventually chosen to use some form of arbitration
because the feuds were ripping society apart. Early medieval Germany is
a good example-fines were instituted to solve disputes because too many
people were dying in feuds. I would think that in a Western anarchist
society that some arbitrator would be elected who could be gone to for a
fair judgement. In Asia and Africa tribal elders or chieftains would
probably be used. A good example is Somaliland (northern part of what
was once Somalia) where the people have reverted to the ancient tribal
ways.
Ruben
>
>redrum <na...@na.da> wrote in message
>news:s9q5hj...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I was talking with my psychic a couple days ago about America's future
>> and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
>> made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
>> century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
>> the name for our philosophy. "Anarchism", "libertarianism", and
>> "libertarian socialism" all have accumulated negative associations.
>> "Anarchists" are seen as bomb throwing lunatics, "libertarian" is (at
>> least in America) associated with a conservative political party called
>> the Libertarian Party, and anything with "socialism" in it is seen
>> through the effects that governmental state socialism/communism has had
>> on the world. So we need a new name for our ideas. A good start would be
>> to look at the Latin equivalent of "anarchy" which comes from Greek
>> ("an" meaning "without", "arch" meaning "leader"). I don't know any
>> Latin, so I can't help there. Any other ideas?
>>
>Just call it democracy. (little 'd' ) Everybody likes that. Then just don't
>hire any government employee's.
I like your suggestion.
In a way, anarchism is like taking democracy to the extremes, because
it is akin to democracy (the opposite of dictatorship) when you get
rid of all those bosses and parasites from the government.
Perhaps anarchism can be redefined and state-less democracy.
ruben (A)
Constantinople
>
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 17:58:02 GMT, constan...@my-deja.com
>(Constantinople) wrote:
>
>>na...@na.da (redrum) wrote in <s9ra5b...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>>one hand, this is good, because it shows that anarchism doesn't
>>>propose simple answers for complex problems. On the other hand,
>>>it's hard to hold a person's attention to try to explain
>>>anarchism to them, especially when that person has been trained
>>>by TV to have a 7 minute attention span at most. Most people
>>>have been trained to have their "knowledge" packaged into sound
>>>bites, and expanding their minds is difficult.
>>
>>I have no problem explaining my anarchism quickly and succinctly.
>>Of course it's not your anarchism.
>
>Not what may be called a contribution to the discussion
I wonder if the irony of your response escapes you.
Matt
> >Malatesta:
> >
> > "Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies, strictly
> >speaking, "without government": the state of a people without any
> >constituted authority."
>
> According to what i know of Greek, the etimology of the word Anarchy
> does not include the concept of "government", but of "rulers" or
> "official leaders". So Anarchy would mean "without rulers" or as i
> like to say: "nobody is in command".
Rulers or official leaders amount to the same thing as government. You
are trying to stretch it to the point where voluntary leadership is not
permissible. This is not reasonable.
In any viable society there are going to be organizations where there is
someone in charge. We need leaders. Sometimes we are leaders
ourselves. Other times we are followers, depending on what the job is.
The simple fact is that people are too self-interested and quarrelsome
to make large-scale cooperation for a common goal possible without a
leader. The question is whether the guy in charge got to be in charge by
aggression against peaceful people, or by voluntary accession.
I think if you try to have no one in command, you are just going to end
up with someone in command anyway who is constantly reassuring people
that he doesn't have any power. This could well be a dangerous situation.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
Graybar
Maybe with the internet a direct voting system could be established,
thereby eliminating the need for representatives and a congress. With
the power of government spread across the country, divided into every
house and apartment, the corruption that is now present with
lobbyist/polititians would be unable to collect in one large
cesspool. (maybe corruption would dry up.)
Graybar
wrote:
>I haven't been following this thread, but was struck by the subject. Has
>anyone mentioned Robert Lefevre's solution to the problem? He used the
>term "autarchy," on the grounds that we were describing a system where
>each person ruled himself.
>
David Friedman hits the nail square on the head! To bad the term
would probably be mistaken for 'Government by automobile'.
Greg Bane
If two people voluntarily agree to resolve thier dispute why do they
need a judge? why can't they just sit down and bargain to find an
acceptable middle ground?
redrum had proposed "self government" as a synonym for anarchy. Then
he advocated breaking up government into smaller more managable
pieces.(neighborhoods). Matt responded by saying that:
>Well then you still have government--just many smaller governments
>hierarchy, anarcho-socialists still can't seem to think outside of a
>hierarchical model. In your preferred system, what happens if a person
>in neighborhood A murders someone from neighborhood B? If you insist on
>territorial sovereigns, it seems like you will need a higher authority
>over both neighborhoods in order to apply the law. Or, the neighborhood
>governments could go to war, but that is probably not what you want. Or
>it could be that there is simply no way to find justice in this system.
What I propose as an Anarchist is to break government down into the
smallest possible pieces. Individuals. I know what you are thinking,
"that would only result in chaos".
When I say that each person must govern themselves that is what I
mean. Every Individual should have their own rules governing their
interaction with others. No rules should be drawn between individuals,
every time you draw a line the result is a restriction of liberty.
Each person should govern themselves according to their own
philosophy.
I think that the reason why you, Constantinople, would prefer to have
your case heard before a judge is that you possess no philosophy to
guide your daily activities.
Constantinople is typical of bourgeois society, he has been thoroughly
endoctrinated by the capitalist advertising propoganda machine into
thinking that the creation of wealth is the key to his happiness.
Alas, he is doomed to a life of misery. : (
I'll bet if Constantinople catalogued all of the property that he
'owns' he would find out that he has more stuff that he never uses
compared to the things he uses on a daily basis. Am I right? How does
that fit into your capitalist efficiency planning?
David Friedman
wrote:
> Even in
> societies which have gone the route of "solve it yourself or get in a
> feud" they have eventually chosen to use some form of arbitration
> because the feuds were ripping society apart.
Judging by saga period Iceland, which is the only feud society I know
much about, this is a somewhat misleading way of putting it. Disputes
were settled by either courts or private arbitrators, with the threat
that if they were not settled they would lead to feuds always in the
background.
And although people were sometimes killed in feuds, the amount of
violence was surprisingly low by either medieval or modern standards.
Consider Njalsaga. Eventually, after a long series of conflicts, Njal
and his (adult, warrior) sons are burnt in their house. The attackers
offer Njal's wife and the servants the opportunity to leave unharmed.
And even this is clearly pushing the boundary of acceptable behavior in
feud. Earlier in the saga, when Njal's friend Gunnar is attacked and is
defending himself effectively from his house, Mord, the villain of the
saga, proposes that the attackers set the house afire, and the rest of
the group decline to do so, pretty clearly because they think it would
be shameful behavior. Compare that to the Albigensian crusade, or mass
bombing in this century.
James McGuigan
lot of ass-hole lawers who get paid for "proving" the guilty innocent. The
men would have to be chosen wisely so as for the system to work. I would
assume that the main priority for such an individual would be to ensure
fairness and propreation for unjusts as aposed to punishments. The one other
question you would have to ask is what would be done about a person who
disputes or even refuses to go by the arbitors judgement. Banshment?
Tim Kelley
>
> I was talking with my psychic a couple days ago about America's future
> and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
> made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
> century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
> the name for our philosophy. "Anarchism", "libertarianism", and
> "libertarian socialism" all have accumulated negative associations.
> "Anarchists" are seen as bomb throwing lunatics, "libertarian" is (at
> least in America) associated with a conservative political party called
> the Libertarian Party, and anything with "socialism" in it is seen
> through the effects that governmental state socialism/communism has had
> on the world. So we need a new name for our ideas. A good start would be
> to look at the Latin equivalent of "anarchy" which comes from Greek
> ("an" meaning "without", "arch" meaning "leader"). I don't know any
> Latin, so I can't help there. Any other ideas?
Actually, I rather like the name "anarchism"; I don't really care
what the media has done to it.
I don't find the concept very difficult to explain.
--
Tim Kelley
tpke...@winkinc.com
James A. Donald
On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 12:14:20 -0500, Apple <app...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> I hear you but the problem with 'anarcho-capitalism' is that
> most people have never heard of it. And if you call it Anarchism
> then you have to explain how you can be an anarchist and not
> be either a commie or the Unabomber!
It has not been my experience that mainstreamers think that anarchists
are commies. My ideas are the ideas that they expect of anarchists.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
98t0khE6XWH9HTqCODwjPaHAZIF82aQCvBl6lPEr
4FEwamPn3zxg/2BFVS89Yk3NL2uqBQQtZZyFjnlW0
Constantinople
>
>I think that the reason why you, Constantinople, would prefer to have
>your case heard before a judge is that you possess no philosophy to
>guide your daily activities.
I do not have any case that I want to have heard before any
judge. I have never been in a courtroom except for jury duty.
I've solved all my conflicts without third parties (with the
exception of childhood conflicts decided by adults). Which has
nothing to do with the question at hand, which is whether there
are conflicts that two people find themselves unable to resolve
peacefully by themselves. Of course there are, and there are good
reasons for thinking that bringing in an impartial third party to
make the decision will often resolve these conflicts in a way
that will be peacefully accepted by both parties. One of those
reasons is that we can see that this is exactly what happens.
>Constantinople is typical of bourgeois society, he has been thoroughly
>endoctrinated by the capitalist advertising propoganda machine into
>thinking that the creation of wealth is the key to his happiness.
>Alas, he is doomed to a life of misery. : (
>
>I'll bet if Constantinople catalogued all of the property that he
>'owns' he would find out that he has more stuff that he never uses
>compared to the things he uses on a daily basis. Am I right? How does
>that fit into your capitalist efficiency planning?
I'm flattered that you are so obsessed with me, but your speculations
about me have nothing to do with the issue.
Matt
> >cut see previous atricle.
>
> If two people voluntarily agree to resolve thier dispute why do they
> need a judge? why can't they just sit down and bargain to find an
> acceptable middle ground?
Many disputes are far too intractable for this to work. Other disputes
can be resolved, but require a third party to guide the process.
Otherwise emotions can prevent the process from making headway. Still
other disputes require a judge of some sort, because there is no common
ground and without a resolution there could be violence.
The predominant means for dispute resolution that I know of are
negotiation, mediation, arbitration (binding and non-binding), and
litigation. All of these have their advantages and disadvantages; one
method will be better than others depending on the type of dispute.
For example, negotiation or mediation might be useful when both parties
intend to continue having a relationship once the dispute is over.
Arbitration might be more useful if parties don't care about their
relationship and want to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible.
[snip]
> What I propose as an Anarchist is to break government down into the
> smallest possible pieces. Individuals. I know what you are thinking,
> "that would only result in chaos".
I agree with your approach. I agree with individual self-government. I
think, however, that your willingness to eliminate rules between
individuals is quite naive. In my view, individuals can and must create
rules between them that are binding (i.e. that can be enforced).
> When I say that each person must govern themselves that is what I
> mean. Every Individual should have their own rules governing their
> interaction with others. No rules should be drawn between individuals,
> every time you draw a line the result is a restriction of liberty.
So let's say there is no rule against murder. Such a rule would
restrict my liberty to murder you. But if I am free to rightly murder
you, that places a rather serious restriction on your liberty (i.e.
you're dead).
Absolute freedom is self-contradictory. This is so because some types
of behavior limit or destroy the freedom of others. One type of act,
like murder, must be permissible, because the murderer is free to set
his own rules; yet at the same time, the act must be impermissible,
because it destroys the freedom of the victim (indeed destroys the
victim entirely).
> Each person should govern themselves according to their own
> philosophy.
Broadly speaking, I agree with this. I agree people should be free to
live according to their own religions, philosophies, lifestyle, etc.
But there are moral principles that apply to everyone, otherwise freedom
is impossible. If people are totally free to ignore each other's
rights, you are not talking about freedom but domination by the people
who are willing to harm others.
> I think that the reason why you, Constantinople, would prefer to have
> your case heard before a judge is that you possess no philosophy to
> guide your daily activities.
That is an unjustified attack. If you try to kill him, for example, he
probably does not want to sit down at a table with you to work out the
dispute, because for all he knows you will try to kill him again. The
reason he prefers a judge is probably because he's smart enough to
realize some disputes are too dangerous to be worked out without a third
party.
> Constantinople is typical of bourgeois society, he has been thoroughly
> endoctrinated by the capitalist advertising propoganda machine into
> thinking that the creation of wealth is the key to his happiness.
> Alas, he is doomed to a life of misery. : (
You almost sound like you are being facetious. Do you take this
seriously?
[snip]
Marcin Tustin
Hash: SHA1
In article <ddfr-14D586.1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
dd...@best.com says...
> I haven't been following this thread, but was struck by the
> subject. Has anyone mentioned Robert Lefevre's solution to
> the problem? He used the term "autarchy," on the grounds that
> we were describing a system where each person ruled himself.
I think someone may have mentioned it. However, it has the
problem that it recalls the Nazi self-sufficiency policy of
"autarky". Additionally, it may be confusing as it suggests
that it is an egoist/individualist form of anarchism, rather
than a catholic term for anarchy.
I would suggest that we rather reclaim the terms anarchism
and
anarchy fro our own once more. How? By heavily promoting them
in accordance with our promotion of anarchism. As I have said
before, this should be done under the aegis of large "broad
church" organisations collecting disparate radical and
reformist elements, to allow people to work from an affinity
group of their choice, but to organise on "bread and butter"
issues.
- --
Humanity will not be happy until the day when the
last bureaucrat has been hanged with the guts of
the last capitalist.
Marcin Tustin
PGP Key at
http://www.anarchist99.freeserve.co.uk/marcintustin.txt
Mar...@mindless.REMOVEGOATS&OATS.com
Marcint@^^refreshmagazine.com.nomail <-- Do not use at this
time
KeyID 0x86D72550
Fingerprint DDD9 FB07 4C2F 9A79 C860 C391 D672 364C 86D7 2550
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBOKG2stZyNkyG1yVQEQLqGgCgnF4TuhGqG0rmreXAauj1VLLGYQkAoJ1i
tCcld056I3UM3k/t0gnS1gJM
=2aTQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Barnaby
Any other ideas?
>
How about "a collection of easily forgotten boring middle class originated
political theories and actions designed to piss off mater and pater while
going through rebellious post-puberty"?
I know it's a bit of a mouthful but most anarchists are full of shit anyway.
anarchismus
Bu5t AUTARCHY means "self-rule" and is thus at least as radical
as anarchy. It implies self-ownership....
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Greg Bane
<constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38a0f027...@news.novia.net>, greg...@novia.net says...
>>
>
>>I think that the reason why you, Constantinople, would prefer to have
>>your case heard before a judge is that you possess no philosophy to
>>guide your daily activities.
>
>I do not have any case that I want to have heard before any
>judge. I have never been in a courtroom except for jury duty.
>I've solved all my conflicts without third parties (with the
>exception of childhood conflicts decided by adults). Which has
>nothing to do with the question at hand, which is whether there
>are conflicts that two people find themselves unable to resolve
>peacefully by themselves. Of course there are, and there are good
>reasons for thinking that bringing in an impartial third party to
>make the decision will often resolve these conflicts in a way
>that will be peacefully accepted by both parties. One of those
>reasons is that we can see that this is exactly what happens.
>
>>Constantinople is typical of bourgeois society, he has been thoroughly
>>endoctrinated by the capitalist advertising propoganda machine into
>>thinking that the creation of wealth is the key to his happiness.
>>Alas, he is doomed to a life of misery. : (
>>
>>I'll bet if Constantinople catalogued all of the property that he
>>'owns' he would find out that he has more stuff that he never uses
>>compared to the things he uses on a daily basis. Am I right? How does
>>that fit into your capitalist efficiency planning?
>
>I'm flattered that you are so obsessed with me, but your speculations
>about me have nothing to do with the issue.
>
I was goading you to see if your true beleifs could be brought out.
You have the A.C. rap down, but I wonder if you really believe it. I
mostly speculate on how you expect to achieve a real life A.C. system.
Or is it all just a theory?
I think my speculations have everything to do with the differing
opinions of Anarcho-Capitalists and plain old Anarchists like me.
Have you read Marx/Engels "Comunist Manifesto"? It's a political
theory classic.
If so, what do you think of their version of political history, is it
accurate? If you agree that their description of class struggle is a
realistic view of society, then you must agree that capitalists and
anarchists are incompatible.
Greg Bane
wrote:
>In article <38a0f027...@news.novia.net>, greg...@novia.net wrote:
>> I think that the reason why you, Constantinople, would prefer to have
>> your case heard before a judge is that you possess no philosophy to
>> guide your daily activities.
>
>That is an unjustified attack. If you try to kill him, for example, he
>probably does not want to sit down at a table with you to work out the
>dispute, because for all he knows you will try to kill him again. The
>reason he prefers a judge is probably because he's smart enough to
>realize some disputes are too dangerous to be worked out without a third
>party.
>
>> Constantinople is typical of bourgeois society, he has been thoroughly
>> endoctrinated by the capitalist advertising propoganda machine into
>> thinking that the creation of wealth is the key to his happiness.
>> Alas, he is doomed to a life of misery. : (
>
>You almost sound like you are being facetious. Do you take this
>seriously?
Why do people need to put rules between them? I should be able to
make a deal on a handshake.
I live in a world where I am forced to interact with strangers. I go
to the grocery store and wait in a line to hand my money to some
stranger on behalf of a store owner whose identity is completely
unknown to me. Suppose I sign an agreement with a department store
for a credit card, how do I know I can trust the store to keep
accurate records and not charge me more than I owe?
The answer is Laws. Laws are the skeletal structure that keep big
business in business. Laws allow strangers to conduct business. I
know that you think this is a good thing. I think that it is a bad
thing, contributing greatly to dehumanizing society. The
concentration of wealth into capital possessed by a minority, turns
the remainder of society into slaves.
Laws produce a two sided result. In action they always split society
into two groups, lawful and unlawful. Laws which people use to define
their rights in society, would appear on the surface to be
pro-freedom. That is, the expected outcome would be more freedom for
all.
An Example: law1 would be "Every human being has the right to live."
In adopting this law you restrict my freedom in dealing with others,
acheiving the opposite of the intended effect, of increased freedom.
Suppose now in the context of law1 a man comes and sits in my house
saying he will not leave. I can not persuad him with words to leave.
I must resort to violence to remove him. I feel restrained from action
because I fear violating law1. Now what must happen? Pass law2 "A
man's home is his castle". I now have a legal right to remove the
squatter, but this does not relieve me of my obligation to respect his
life and so I still fear that he may recieve a fatal injury during his
removal and so can not take action.
Solution; law3 "In enforcing law2 one may dispense with law1". Now my
way is clear. I may feel free to defend my home with whatever force is
necessary.
As you can plainly see in the process of defining a universal idea
like the right to life, I have painted myself into a box. Now I must
think twice before defending myself for fear of violating law1 and I
am now restricted from going where I please because of law2, which if
I wander into the wrong place could allow someone under law3 to end my
life.
Each Law although appearing to grant more freedom, actually restricts
freedom and separates society. This duality is part of the nature of
all laws, and it is for this reason that I propose no laws between
people. Let people know their neighbors and deal with them directly.
Through the experience of continued relationship people will know what
to expect from one another and consequently need no laws to remedy the
unexpected behavior of strangers.
Greg Bane
<james.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
>Greg Bane <greg...@novia.net> wrote in message
>news:38a0f027...@news.novia.net...
>> >cut see previous atricle.
>>
>> If two people voluntarily agree to resolve thier dispute why do they
>> need a judge? why can't they just sit down and bargain to find an
>> acceptable middle ground?
>
>Of course if two people can work out an aceptable solution between
>themselves then their is no need of a judge of any kind. The problem happens
>when you have two (or even more) people who cannot resulve the argument. Or
>just wish for the solution the the dispute to be formalized by a judge. This
>would be similar to civil courts at the moment but without lawers. The judge
>would simply be an aid to the resolution of a dispute. Cort costs would be
>very low (no lawers) and would have to be fast (no 9 month OJ trials) and
>would be split between all the parties involved unless agreed otherwise.
>
>As for criminal cases, although their would be no law per-se, I would have
>to say that the best way to deal with this would be to say that if someone
>unjustly hurts, harms, reduces, (commits a crime against) then the
>perpetrator must make up any damage (not just monatary) caused to the
>satisfaction to all or a majority of all the people concerned or to the
>satisfaction of an independant judge (if nessary). Although this would
>become a little hard with things like murder but somthing could be worked
>out.
>
>The ideal scene would be everone co-operating to achieve a peaceful and
>productive society. Judges would simply help to smooth things out where
>there becomes complications. The purpose would not be punishment but
>resolution.
>
Many people are uncertian of themselves and seek approval from their
masters. This is a condition of childhood, as a child I must seek all
my needs form my parents. In the process of growing into a mature
person, I too sought approval from my superiors. But once I reached
the age of reasoning I resolved to become my own person. I have since
cast a critical eye upon all that would attempt to influence me,or
steer me, or dominate me, or otherwise shape the person I am. I make
up my own mind, and trust my own judgement. I listen to suggestions,
but I rebel against demands. I am an Anarchist.
Greg Bane
(Constantinople) wrote:
cut --see previous post
>
>Absence of law is as we can see no improvement over law.
>
My point is that I do not require an external rule to govern my
behavior. As you have pointed out, in the absence written law,
natural law will prevail. What's wrong with that? I beleive in paying
my bills, but I resent you using force of law to coerce me to pay my
bills. Once you claim a right to do this, you have placed yourself in
a higher class, and me in a subservient class. Is this your dream for
mankind? Are we all here to serve you?
Constantinople
<38a2134f...@news.novia.net>:
>>>Constantinople is typical of bourgeois society, he has been
>>>thoroughly endoctrinated by the capitalist advertising
>>>propoganda machine into thinking that the creation of wealth
>>>is the key to his happiness. Alas, he is doomed to a life of
>>>misery. : (
>>>
>>>I'll bet if Constantinople catalogued all of the property that
>>>he 'owns' he would find out that he has more stuff that he
>>>never uses compared to the things he uses on a daily basis. Am
>>>I right? How does that fit into your capitalist efficiency
>>>planning?
>>
>>I'm flattered that you are so obsessed with me, but your
>>speculations about me have nothing to do with the issue.
>>
>I was goading you to see if your true beleifs could be brought
>out. You have the A.C. rap down, but I wonder if you really
>believe it. I mostly speculate on how you expect to achieve a
>real life A.C. system. Or is it all just a theory?
The theory's a bit more convincing than your theory that people
would always want to dispense with third-party arbitration and
that that would achieve equally good results.
>I think my speculations have everything to do with the
>differing opinions of Anarcho-Capitalists and plain old
>Anarchists like me.
Anarchists like you? I've been reading the posts in this thread,
and most of the non-AC anarchists seem to agree that third-party
arbitration is needed. For example, redrum writes:
In tribal societies there is usually a recognized arbitrator
who solves disputes. [. . .] I would think that in a Western
anarchist society that some arbitrator would be elected who
could be gone to for a fair judgement.
So there doesn't seem to be anything anarcho-capitalist about my
position on this issue.
>Have you read Marx/Engels "Comunist Manifesto"? It's a political
>theory classic. If so, what do you think of their version of
>political history, is it accurate? If you agree that their
>description of class struggle is a realistic view of society,
>then you must agree that capitalists and anarchists are
>incompatible.
I've read it. No, I don't agree with it.
James McGuigan
James McGuigan
Barnaby <terr...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87sm08$p6$1...@gxsn.com...
Most are but that still leaves the few who arn't. Anarchism seems to be used
by some as a way of attaching something that has underground popularity to
thier own left/right views (which can be extreem). One form of anarchism
(described by extreem left wingers) seems very akin to communism, or it's
intended end result. I think that this would fail. Communsim is the religion
without a god. I preaches that the underclass (good) must wage eternal war
against the upper classes (evil). Class has nothing to do with money or
possesions, it is all to do with ideas and considerations.
I have my own vision of how things should go. You have yours. One big
problem that we have in this world (especially politics and law) is the view
that everthing should be polerized one way or another and that different
views should be confrontational. This has led to our current govenments who
often seem more intrested in making the other party wrong than making
everthing right. If we are to forge a new civilization with a new form of
govenment (or lack of) then we must start to agree amonst ourselves, for if
we can't do that then how on earth do we get everyone else to. We are all (I
hope) agreed that the current form of goverment is flawed and abused, and
the system needs to be changed. If that is so then it is we who must change
it (god won't). So what we must now discuss how to remove the old system and
what exactly to replace it with.
I have found this thread very interesting as it has disscussed anarchism and
not the current system, leftism or rightism.
Constantinople
> I live in a world where I am forced to interact with strangers.
> I go
>to the grocery store and wait in a line to hand my money to some
>stranger on behalf of a store owner whose identity is completely
>unknown to me. Suppose I sign an agreement with a department
>store for a credit card, how do I know I can trust the store to
>keep accurate records and not charge me more than I owe?
>
>The answer is Laws.
Actually, the answer is not laws. If they overcharge you you will
go to a competitor. If they develop a reputation for charging
their customers arbitrary amounts, no one will sign up for their
credit card - because there are other choices. The answer in this
case is competition.
You don't have to pay your credit card bill. But you choose to
pay the credit card bill anyway because if you don't you will not
be extended credit in the future. For a similar reason, you tell
the truth because if you do not people will stop listening to
you. (Maybe not you personally.)
There isn't much need for coercive enforcement of this sort of
business agreement. Nevertheless, there are obvious rules. A rule
is, if you get a bill and the bill is correct, you pay the bill.
Another rule is, the store charges you only for what you bought.
People follow these rules because if they don't, other people
will stop doing business with them.
Your rhetoric is not only anti-law, it is also anti-rule. That
means, you want to dispense even with the rule that you must pay
what you owe, and the rule that you must not say someone owes you
something if they do not.
>Laws are the skeletal structure that keep big business in
>business. Laws allow strangers to conduct business.
You prefer a society in which I am unable to conduct business
with strangers. But that would reduce, not expand, my options.
>I know that you think this is a good thing. I think that it is a
>bad thing, contributing greatly to dehumanizing society. The
>concentration of wealth into capital possessed by a minority,
>turns the remainder of society into slaves.
That's a major logical leap. You start out by saying you don't
want to have to face high schoolers that you don't know in the
checkout line at the grocery store, that this is a great ordeal
for you. And then you leap to the assertion that the
concentration of wealth turns the shoppers into slaves, which not
only has little obvious connection with the foregoing, but also
is obviously wrong, as is clear to anyone who observes people
shopping for groceries.
> An Example: law1 would be "Every human being has the right to
> live."
>In adopting this law you restrict my freedom in dealing with
>others, acheiving the opposite of the intended effect, of
>increased freedom. Suppose now in the context of law1 a man
>comes and sits in my house saying he will not leave. I can not
>persuad him with words to leave. I must resort to violence to
>remove him. I feel restrained from action because I fear
>violating law1. Now what must happen? Pass law2 "A man's home
>is his castle". I now have a legal right to remove the
>squatter, but this does not relieve me of my obligation to
>respect his life and so I still fear that he may recieve a fatal
>injury during his removal and so can not take action. Solution;
>law3 "In enforcing law2 one may dispense with law1". Now my way
>is clear. I may feel free to defend my home with whatever force
>is necessary.
>
>As you can plainly see in the process of defining a universal
>idea like the right to life, I have painted myself into a box.
Yes, YOU painted yourself into a box, but that says more about
you than about the law.
>Now I must think twice before defending myself for fear of
>violating law1 and I am now restricted from going where I please
>because of law2, which if I wander into the wrong place could
>allow someone under law3 to end my life.
You have to think twice before defending yourself in any case,
law or no law, because the other man's friends and relatives may
come after you. You also have to think twice before entering
someone's home, law or no law, because people are naturally going
to be afraid of intruders and are likely to use violence against
intruders.
Constantinople
>
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:08:39 GMT, constan...@my-deja.com
>(Constantinople) wrote:
>cut --see previous post
>>
>>
>behavior. As you have pointed out, in the absence written law,
>natural law will prevail. What's wrong with that?
I did not say anything was wrong with that. I did not say
anything about written law. I said that in the absence of law
there will be...as you have realized, there will be law anyway.
So there will be no absence of law. Which you are happy with.
Great, so why are you complaining?
>I beleive in paying
>my bills, but I resent you using force of law to coerce me to pay my
>bills. Once you claim a right to do this, you have placed yourself in
>a higher class, and me in a subservient class. Is this your dream for
>mankind? Are we all here to serve you?
I don't care whether you pay your bills or not. That's between
you and the person you owe money. Where do you get the idea that
I intend to provide a public service to people who are owed
money?
Tim Kelley
> >I think my speculations have everything to do with the
> >differing opinions of Anarcho-Capitalists and plain old
> >Anarchists like me.
>
> Anarchists like you? I've been reading the posts in this thread,
> and most of the non-AC anarchists seem to agree that third-party
> arbitration is needed. For example, redrum writes:
>
> In tribal societies there is usually a recognized arbitrator
> who solves disputes. [. . .] I would think that in a Western
> anarchist society that some arbitrator would be elected who
> could be gone to for a fair judgement.
... and I would agree as well; it is more than a little naive to
think that folks will resolve all disputes peacefully ... most of
the time no one is willing to admit culpability for anything (if
there are no witnessess). I've certainly experienced that
enough.
--
Tim Kelley
tpke...@winkinc.com
Greg Bane
wrote:
I think you watch too many T.V. shows, where everything is neatly
wrapped up in a half hour. Not everything needs to be resolved. If
you just wait long enough, it will resolve itself, either the
conflicting parties will move on and forget the conflict or they will
die from old age. If it is a conflict which involves many parties on
both sides then WAR. War is a time honoured human tradition.
Greg Bane
<constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38a239e3...@news.novia.net>, greg...@novia.net says...
>>
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:08:39 GMT, constan...@my-deja.com
>>(Constantinople) wrote:
>>cut --see previous post
>>>
>>>Absence of law is as we can see no improvement over law.
>>>
>>My point is that I do not require an external rule to govern my
>>behavior. As you have pointed out, in the absence written law,
>>natural law will prevail. What's wrong with that?
>
>I did not say anything was wrong with that. I did not say
>anything about written law. I said that in the absence of law
>there will be...as you have realized, there will be law anyway.
>So there will be no absence of law. Which you are happy with.
>Great, so why are you complaining?
>
>>I beleive in paying
>>my bills, but I resent you using force of law to coerce me to pay my
>>bills. Once you claim a right to do this, you have placed yourself in
>>a higher class, and me in a subservient class. Is this your dream for
>>mankind? Are we all here to serve you?
>
>I don't care whether you pay your bills or not. That's between
>you and the person you owe money. Where do you get the idea that
>I intend to provide a public service to people who are owed
>money?
>
The service you suggested is a private service of courts and judges.
Who would provide a decision, that would allow someone to appear
justified in the eyes of the community, in using force against
another.
Even in a free market the best lots of goods go to the highest bidder.
It is plain to see that Rich people, people with more means, the upper
class, the borgouisie, would be able to hire the best lawyers, see
that the right judges were appointed,provide for intricate court
proceedure, that they could then manipulate to their advantage and be
therefore better able to recieve judgements in their favor.
It is because of this inequality in the resolution process that I am
against laws between people.
Matt
> Why do people need to put rules between them? I should be able to
> make a deal on a handshake.
You can, if the other party trusts you. If, however, you are making a
deal that concerns a big chunk of your wealth, you need to draw up a
contract, and be sure that you have a means to enforce it. The fact is
you can't trust everyone. If the other guy rips you off, you don't want
to lose everything. You need a reliable means of recovering what was
lost--talking with the guy is not enough.
[snip]
> Laws produce a two sided result. In action they always split society
> into two groups, lawful and unlawful. Laws which people use to define
> their rights in society, would appear on the surface to be
> pro-freedom. That is, the expected outcome would be more freedom for
> all.
>
> An Example: law1 would be "Every human being has the right to live."
> In adopting this law you restrict my freedom in dealing with others,
> acheiving the opposite of the intended effect, of increased freedom.
You're restricted from being a murderer? Well boo-fuckin-hoo!
[snip]
> Each Law although appearing to grant more freedom, actually restricts
> freedom and separates society.
I think that true laws are those which in fact allow us more freedom,
because they outlaw those types of activities that would destroy our
freedom. If you have no law, those who don't respect freedom will
dominate everyone else, and the rest will have no mechanism for stopping
it. So yes it is true that laws restrict certain freedoms, but I argue
this is not a bad thing.
I don't know or really care what you mean by seperating society. I only
care that if someone threatens me or my loved ones, I will be able to do
something about it.
>This duality is part of the nature of
> all laws, and it is for this reason that I propose no laws between
> people. Let people know their neighbors and deal with them directly.
> Through the experience of continued relationship people will know what
> to expect from one another and consequently need no laws to remedy the
> unexpected behavior of strangers.
This is similar to the arguments for reputational enforcement made by
anarcho-capitalists such as James Donald and David Friedman. I venture,
however, that for some types of activity, namely violence, there need to
be laws that proscribe it, and a means to enforce those laws.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
"no government knows any limits to its power, except the
endurance of the people" -- Lysander Spooner
Matt
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:08:39 GMT, constan...@my-deja.com
> (Constantinople) wrote:
> cut --see previous post
> >
> >Absence of law is as we can see no improvement over law.
> >
> My point is that I do not require an external rule to govern my
> behavior. As you have pointed out, in the absence written law,
> natural law will prevail. What's wrong with that? I beleive in paying
> my bills, but I resent you using force of law to coerce me to pay my
> bills. Once you claim a right to do this, you have placed yourself in
> a higher class, and me in a subservient class. Is this your dream for
> mankind? Are we all here to serve you?
Why do you spew such bullshit.
If he forces you to pay what you owe him, he is not in any way putting
himself in a higher class.
It is just the reverse.
If you promise to pay him, and then fail to do so, YOU are arrogating to
yourself special rights--the right to make promises and not keep them.
You are putting yourself in a class above him, such that you can benefit
from his labor without compensating him as you agreed. Thus if he uses
force to make you pay, he is not putting himself higher than you. On
the contrary, he is pulling you down out of the clouds, back to the
level of ordinary men. If you made a promise, you have to keep it, just
like the rest of us.
In many business deals there is fortunately little or no threat of
force, because reputational enforcement is sufficient. But if there is
a threat of force, for example the threat to prosecute shoplifters, that
is only a threat of defensive force, and is perfectly legitimate. I
admit that in an ideal utopian society, none of this would be needed,
but in the real world people do steal, do break promises, and so we need
to be able to defend ourselves.
Greg Bane
Apple <app...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:389FCB7E...@bellsouth.net...Greg Bane wrote:Just call it democracy. (little 'd' ) Everybody likes that. Then just don'tBut anarchy is not democracy, it's not even in the same arena.
hire any government employee's.
If anything its what Smith called Pizzacracy or what someone
has suggested calling Hyper-democracy(a term I find somewhat
dubious).
PS. Pizzacracy as you might of guessed it was coined one night
at a pizza joint. The idea was that you could split a pie with someone
if you wanted to but you didn't have to. You paid for what you ate and
if you didn't eat you didn't have to pay. And if you chose to leave you
just picked up your slice and left.There's an interesting if not long winded essay on
the subject at:
The Tyranny of Democracy, by L. Neil SmithHow about DirectDemocracy, SelfDemocracy or what I call Anarcho-Democracy. This would be a situation where laws would only pass on a 100% approval of those subject to the law. No need for representatives, or a large centralized bureaucracy. It's a maximum free-association type situation. What do you think?
Greg Bane
wrote:
>In article <38a239e3...@news.novia.net>, greg...@novia.net
But why do you need the approval of a judge to defend yourself?
The issuer of credit is making me a loan. if it is an unsecured loan
then he must rely on my good will to repay it. But it was a secured
loan, the collateral was the bread which I purchased from him. I
cannot repay his loan at this time because I ate the bread and have no
money. I fully intend to repay when my circumstances change. Am I
wrong to incur debt to stop my starvation. If you were starving would
you just die? What if it were your family that needed the bread?
According to the law I am wrong, on the side of villiany because I am
forced to reduce myself to crime to survive.
If you ignore my plight, you place yourself in a higher class. If you
sympathize with my misfortune you would not need a court and laws, you
would give me the bread to help me get back on my feet.
Laws between people always divides society.
Greg Bane
(Constantinople) wrote:
cut --see previous post
>>On 10 Feb 2000 07:10:39 -0800, Constantinople
>><constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>
>The court and therefore the judge would be chosen by both
>parties. The court might be one that does not allow lawyers. The
>court in any case would necessarily have to be acceptable to, and
>chosen by, the poor party in the dispute.
>
I could see two people who had a dispute,going to a third, pleading
their cases and asking for advice. I don't see how a court or regular
full time judge need be appointed or any reason for the third party to
be paid. As for your magnanimous suggestion that the poor party pick
a court, well that's just as bad as a rich person buying a court. It
opens up the same can of worms, only on the other side of the Law.
Greg Bane
(Constantinople) wrote:
>greg...@novia.net (Greg Bane) wrote in
><38a21954...@news.novia.net>:
>
>> I live in a world where I am forced to interact with strangers.
>> I go
>>to the grocery store and wait in a line to hand my money to some
>>stranger on behalf of a store owner whose identity is completely
>>unknown to me. Suppose I sign an agreement with a department
>>store for a credit card, how do I know I can trust the store to
>>keep accurate records and not charge me more than I owe?
>>
>>The answer is Laws.
>
>Actually, the answer is not laws. If they overcharge you you will
>go to a competitor. If they develop a reputation for charging
>their customers arbitrary amounts, no one will sign up for their
>credit card - because there are other choices. The answer in this
>case is competition.
>
>You don't have to pay your credit card bill. But you choose to
>pay the credit card bill anyway because if you don't you will not
>be extended credit in the future. For a similar reason, you tell
>the truth because if you do not people will stop listening to
>you. (Maybe not you personally.)
>
>There isn't much need for coercive enforcement of this sort of
>business agreement. Nevertheless, there are obvious rules. A rule
>is, if you get a bill and the bill is correct, you pay the bill.
>Another rule is, the store charges you only for what you bought.
>People follow these rules because if they don't, other people
>will stop doing business with them.
>
>Your rhetoric is not only anti-law, it is also anti-rule. That
>means, you want to dispense even with the rule that you must pay
>what you owe, and the rule that you must not say someone owes you
>something if they do not.
>
>>Laws are the skeletal structure that keep big business in
>>business. Laws allow strangers to conduct business.
>
>You prefer a society in which I am unable to conduct business
>with strangers. But that would reduce, not expand, my options.
>
>>I know that you think this is a good thing. I think that it is a
>>bad thing, contributing greatly to dehumanizing society. The
>>concentration of wealth into capital possessed by a minority,
>>turns the remainder of society into slaves.
>
>That's a major logical leap. You start out by saying you don't
>want to have to face high schoolers that you don't know in the
>checkout line at the grocery store, that this is a great ordeal
>for you. And then you leap to the assertion that the
>concentration of wealth turns the shoppers into slaves, which not
>only has little obvious connection with the foregoing, but also
>is obviously wrong, as is clear to anyone who observes people
>shopping for groceries.
>
>> An Example: law1 would be "Every human being has the right to
>> live."
>>In adopting this law you restrict my freedom in dealing with
>>others, acheiving the opposite of the intended effect, of
>>increased freedom. Suppose now in the context of law1 a man
>>comes and sits in my house saying he will not leave. I can not
>>persuad him with words to leave. I must resort to violence to
>>remove him. I feel restrained from action because I fear
>>violating law1. Now what must happen? Pass law2 "A man's home
>>is his castle". I now have a legal right to remove the
>>squatter, but this does not relieve me of my obligation to
>>respect his life and so I still fear that he may recieve a fatal
>>injury during his removal and so can not take action. Solution;
>>law3 "In enforcing law2 one may dispense with law1". Now my way
>>is clear. I may feel free to defend my home with whatever force
>>is necessary.
>>
>>As you can plainly see in the process of defining a universal
>>idea like the right to life, I have painted myself into a box.
>
>Yes, YOU painted yourself into a box, but that says more about
>you than about the law.
>
>>Now I must think twice before defending myself for fear of
>>violating law1 and I am now restricted from going where I please
>>because of law2, which if I wander into the wrong place could
>>allow someone under law3 to end my life.
>
>You have to think twice before defending yourself in any case,
>law or no law, because the other man's friends and relatives may
>come after you. You also have to think twice before entering
>someone's home, law or no law, because people are naturally going
>to be afraid of intruders and are likely to use violence against
>intruders.
>
>Absence of law is as we can see no improvement over law.
>
I think you would presume that laws are enforced fairly and equally.
This is not the case and has never been the case. Example: in a
sporting event such as the Super Bowl both teams play by the same
rules, that is they are equally subject to the same penalties for
violations. However evryone knows it is hard to complete even a 3
hour sporting event without having several controversial rulings.
Sometimes players obviously get away with infractions and sometimes
they are unjustly penalized.
The same is true of criminal and civil law. In reality it is a tool
used by those with the means to hire lawyers, to gain leverage against
those who cannot defend themselves.
If you happen to be on the right side of the law, by right side I mean
the class of people who have a vested interest in maintaining the
status quo, then laws seem just.
Vested people such as stock owners, land owners, and the very rich
are priveledged to reside within the law. They have the wealth to
resist all of the draining taps that the law imposes, such as taxes of
all kinds, fees for permits,funds for Insurance required by law, fees
to pay lawyers who are necessary to interpret the complex laws. This
vested class resides within the law and demands it's special
protections.
People in the lower class however does not recieve this protection.
They must resolve to skirt the law as best they can. They do not
posess the wherewithall to pay for fees and insurance after they have
been drained to a subsistance level by taxation. They are often found
in nonconformance with the law, and are reluctant to claim it's
protection. People in the lower class do not recieve equal protection
under the law. Also people in the lower class cannot equally defend
themselves for purely economical reasons, they must depend on court
appointed defenders which is the worst defense.
This inequality alone should persuade you that laws are a bad idea.
Constantinople
>On 10 Feb 2000 07:10:39 -0800, Constantinople
><constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <38a239e3...@news.novia.net>,
>>greg...@novia.net says...
>>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:08:39 GMT, constan...@my-deja.com
>>>(Constantinople) wrote: cut --see previous post
>>>>
>>>>Absence of law is as we can see no improvement over law.
>>>>
>>>My point is that I do not require an external rule to govern
>>>my behavior. As you have pointed out, in the absence written
>>>law, natural law will prevail. What's wrong with that?
>>
>>I did not say anything was wrong with that. I did not say
>>anything about written law. I said that in the absence of law
>>there will be...as you have realized, there will be law anyway.
>>So there will be no absence of law. Which you are happy with.
>>Great, so why are you complaining?
>>
>>>I beleive in paying my bills, but I resent you using force of
>>>law to coerce me to pay my bills. Once you claim a right to do
>>>this, you have placed yourself in a higher class, and me in a
>>>subservient class. Is this your dream for mankind? Are we all
>>>here to serve you?
>>
>>I don't care whether you pay your bills or not. That's between
>>you and the person you owe money. Where do you get the idea
>>that I intend to provide a public service to people who are
>>owed money?
>>
>The service you suggested is a private service of courts and
>judges. Who would provide a decision, that would allow someone
>to appear justified in the eyes of the community, in using force
>against another.
>
>Even in a free market the best lots of goods go to the highest
>bidder.
Like I said, the court would be agreed upon by both parties.
>It is plain to see that Rich people, people with more means, the
>upper class, the borgouisie, would be able to hire the best
>lawyers, see that the right judges were appointed,
The court and therefore the judge would be chosen by both
parties. The court might be one that does not allow lawyers. The
court in any case would necessarily have to be acceptable to, and
chosen by, the poor party in the dispute.
>provide for intricate court proceedure, that they could then
Constantinople
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:54:04 GMT, constan...@my-deja.com
>(Constantinople) wrote:
>
>cut --see previous post
>>>On 10 Feb 2000 07:10:39 -0800, Constantinople
>>><constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>The court and therefore the judge would be chosen by both
>>parties. The court might be one that does not allow lawyers.
>>The court in any case would necessarily have to be acceptable
>>to, and chosen by, the poor party in the dispute.
>>
>I could see two people who had a dispute,going to a third,
>pleading their cases and asking for advice. I don't see how a
>court or regular full time judge need be appointed or any reason
>for the third party to be paid.
That's just a detail. I don't care whether he's paid or not. If
the economics is such that the parties would prefer to spend some
money on a professional court in order to get a better decision,
then that's what will happen. If not, then not.
>As for your magnanimous suggestion that the poor party pick a
>court, well that's just as bad as a rich person buying a court.
It's not a magnanimous suggestion. I'm saying both parties should
pick the court. Both. Not either one alone. Look up - it's right
there in my text just above. I also said the same thing in the
first post of mine in this thread to which you responded. I'm
also asserting that it can be done, i.e., that people will be
able to agree on a court. Which may be unrealistic, but it is no
less realistic than your assertion that two people can just
settle their dispute by themselves. If they can do that, they
certainly can agree on a court. As a matter of fact, I think it
is very realistic to suppose that most people will be able to
agree on a court.
I'd also like to point out that even when people enforce informal
law themselves, without the assistance of any courts, they are
doing so against the background of their mutual neighbors, who
play the role of third party. (But this is not a voluntarily
chosen third party.)
Constantinople
[. . .]
>People in the lower class however does not recieve this
>protection. They must resolve to skirt the law as best they can.
>They do not posess the wherewithall to pay for fees and
>insurance after they have been drained to a subsistance level by
>taxation. They are often found in nonconformance with the law,
>and are reluctant to claim it's protection. People in the lower
>class do not recieve equal protection under the law. Also people
>in the lower class cannot equally defend themselves for purely
>economical reasons, they must depend on court appointed
>defenders which is the worst defense.
>
>This inequality alone should persuade you that laws are a bad
>idea.
It seems to me that a lot of the tragedy that you allude to is
caused by the state, with its monopoly of courts and of the
enforced laws and regulations, not by third-party arbitration as
such. In our current system, the people brought into court do not
choose the court. The private courts that I mentioned would be
private entities, and could not force anyone to use them to
decide disputes. The idiotic and intrusive law that makes so many
peaceful, harmless people into "lawbreakers" even though they are
not bothering anyone else could not exist if courts were private.
No one would pay for it.
Ruben
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 23:07:44 GMT, y...@aqui.com (Ruben) wrote:
>
>>On 8 Feb 2000 01:21:03 -0600, "Greg Bane" <greg...@novia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>redrum <na...@na.da> wrote in message
>>>news:s9q5hj...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> I was talking with my psychic a couple days ago about America's future
>>>> and my hope that we would have an anarchist system before my death. She
>>>> made a very good point that if anarchism is to succeed in the 21st
>>>> century that we need to cast off the baggage of the past. Among that is
>>>> the name for our philosophy. "Anarchism", "libertarianism", and
>>>> "libertarian socialism" all have accumulated negative associations.
>>>> "Anarchists" are seen as bomb throwing lunatics, "libertarian" is (at
>>>> least in America) associated with a conservative political party called
>>>> the Libertarian Party, and anything with "socialism" in it is seen
>>>> through the effects that governmental state socialism/communism has had
>>>> on the world. So we need a new name for our ideas. A good start would be
>>>> to look at the Latin equivalent of "anarchy" which comes from Greek
>>>> ("an" meaning "without", "arch" meaning "leader"). I don't know any
>>>> Latin, so I can't help there. Any other ideas?
>>>>
>>>Just call it democracy. (little 'd' ) Everybody likes that. Then just don't
>>>hire any government employee's.
>>
>>I like your suggestion.
>>In a way, anarchism is like taking democracy to the extremes, because
>>it is akin to democracy (the opposite of dictatorship) when you get
>>rid of all those bosses and parasites from the government.
>>Perhaps anarchism can be redefined and state-less democracy.
>>
>>ruben (A)
>Maybe with the internet a direct voting system could be established,
>thereby eliminating the need for representatives and a congress. With
>the power of government spread across the country, divided into every
>house and apartment, the corruption that is now present with
>lobbyist/polititians would be unable to collect in one large
>cesspool. (maybe corruption would dry up.)
Absolutely.
Anarchism is such an advanced social system, that it needs certain
technological level to be reached before Anarchy can be implemented.
ruben (A)
Ruben
wrote:
>In article <38a09b4b...@news.alt.net>, y...@aqui.com (Ruben) wrote:
>
>> >Malatesta:
>> >
>> > "Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies, strictly
>> >speaking, "without government": the state of a people without any
>> >constituted authority."
>>
>> According to what i know of Greek, the etimology of the word Anarchy
>> does not include the concept of "government", but of "rulers" or
>> "official leaders". So Anarchy would mean "without rulers" or as i
>> like to say: "nobody is in command".
>
>Rulers or official leaders amount to the same thing as government. You
>are trying to stretch it to the point where voluntary leadership is not
>permissible. This is not reasonable.
My point is not to stretch the meaning of anarchism to include a
rejection of the concept of voluntary leadership. I'm rather
emphasizing the last part of Maltesta's definition which you quoted:
"the state of a people without any constituted authority". To me
constituted authority includes not only government, but also every
other authority which is enforced through written rules of top-down
decision making in hierarchical organizations.
I have no problem with voluntary authority. I may accept the authority
of someone for a specific decision. but i remain free to withdraw my
support at any moment.
>In any viable society there are going to be organizations where there is
>someone in charge.
I guess you mean permanently or for some fixed period
>We need leaders. Sometimes we are leaders
>ourselves. Other times we are followers, depending on what the job is.
>The simple fact is that people are too self-interested and quarrelsome
>to make large-scale cooperation for a common goal possible without a
>leader.
You mean a single person? I note that you say "a leader".
>The question is whether the guy in charge got to be in charge by
>aggression against peaceful people, or by voluntary accession.
To me me the question is: Do I have to follow that leadership
permanently or for a fixed period of time no matter what?
>I think if you try to have no one in command, you are just going to end
>up with someone in command anyway who is constantly reassuring people
>that he doesn't have any power. This could well be a dangerous situation.
But it could be better than your view, in which the guy in power does
not even need to hide his privileged position. Looks like in your view
a guy enjoys "constituted authority", violating Malatesta's
definition.
ruben (A)
Apple
Greg Bane wrote:
Apple <app...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:389FCB7E...@bellsouth.net...Greg Bane wrote:
Just call it democracy. (little 'd' ) Everybody likes that. Then just don't
hire any government employee's.
But anarchy is not democracy, it's not even in the same arena.
If anything its what Smith called Pizzacracy or what someone
has suggested calling Hyper-democracy(a term I find somewhat
dubious).
PS. Pizzacracy as you might of guessed it was coined one night
at a pizza joint. The idea was that you could split a pie with someone
if you wanted to but you didn't have to. You paid for what you ate and
if you didn't eat you didn't have to pay. And if you chose to leave you
just picked up your slice and left.There's an interesting if not long winded essay on
the subject at:
The Tyranny of Democracy, by L. Neil SmithHow about DirectDemocracy, SelfDemocracy or what I call Anarcho-Democracy. This would be a situation where laws would only pass on a 100% approval of those subject to the law. No need for representatives, or a large centralized bureaucracy. It's a maximum free-association type situation. What do you think?
You might want to check out this site.
Its a group of anarchists that organize themselves
in exactly the manor you suggest.
Individualist Anarchist Society: About
Tim Kelley
WTF? I don't have a TV, no need to be insulting now. You're not
even making sense.
Let's say someone smashes into your parked car and causes about
$300 of damage. They deny culpability and there aren't any
witnesses except you. How will this situation "resolve itself"?
--
Tim Kelley
tpke...@winkinc.com
Niek Holtzappel
>
> When I meant "directly" I meant without having intermediaries such as
> bosses. Under capitalism, the fruits of people's labors goes to a boss
> who parcles some of it out as salaries and keeps the rest as profit.
When there's no state to protect the "bad" boss, he will fade away
becouse people can choose to work for a "good" boss, or start their own
business or collective.
--
__________________________________________________________
Niek Holtzappel.
Amsterdam Nederland/Netherlands
email: niek.ho...@xs4all.nl
Homepage: http://www.xs4all.nl/~nholtz
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
" Op het water kun je de gekste dingen meemaken,
zo heb ik eens een aanvaring gehad met een trein. "
(Gerben Zonderland - knecht van Boer Jellema )
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
mikel evins
djar...@usa.net.invalid wrote on 2/10/00 4:50 PM:
> In article <38a21954...@news.novia.net>, greg...@novia.net wrote:
>
>> This duality is part of the nature of
>> all laws, and it is for this reason that I propose no laws between
>> people. Let people know their neighbors and deal with them directly.
>> Through the experience of continued relationship people will know what
>> to expect from one another and consequently need no laws to remedy the
>> unexpected behavior of strangers.
>
> This is similar to the arguments for reputational enforcement made by
> anarcho-capitalists such as James Donald and David Friedman. I venture,
> however, that for some types of activity, namely violence, there need to
> be laws that proscribe it, and a means to enforce those laws.
More to the point, there are and will be such laws, whether we like it or
not. People have laws against murder -- whether statutory or customary --
everywhere we look. There is variation in how murder is defined, variation,
for example, in what is considered justifiable, but murder is everywhere
illegal.
I predict that if Greg Bane somehow eliminated laws against robbery and
murder they would spontaneously reappear. I wonder how he would enforce his
ban on laws -- his law against laws?
-------------
mikel evins
mi...@reactivity.com
mikel evins
wrote on 2/10/00 4:22 PM:
> Even in a free market the best lots of goods go to the highest bidder.
> It is plain to see that Rich people, people with more means, the upper
> class, the borgouisie, would be able to hire the best lawyers, see
> that the right judges were appointed,provide for intricate court
> proceedure, that they could then manipulate to their advantage and be
> therefore better able to recieve judgements in their favor.
And yet in historical societies with private courts and enforcement these
problems appear to have been less than in our present system rather than
more. For example, in three such societies (England before 900 AD; Iceland
circa 1000 AD; Papua New Guinea in the 20th century) the local courts were
private, society was not especially stratified, and there were no lawyers.
Taking the case of England, lawyers appeared only after the development of a
strong monarchy, and the king's usurpation of the role of private courts by
introducing laws against violating 'the king's peace' and appointing 'king's
magistrates' to enforce the 'king's justice' by collecting fines (payments
that hitherto had been awarded by private judges to the victims of crimes).
Or, considering Iceland, the 'rich' couldn't get away with crimes any more
easily than the non-rich because a wronged victim could sell his judgement
on the open market, receive a substantial percentage of his damages up
front, and be confident that a tenacious individual with the appropriate
resources would enforce judgement on the rich perpetrator. In fact, the
richer the perpetrator, the more attractive it might be to enforce judgement
on him, since he could presumably afford to pay back the enforcer for all
the expenses of enforcement -- the more he resisted the more he'd end up
having to pay.
I think you are just making unjustified and not-very-well-thought-out
assumptions rather than considering your correspondent's arguments
seriously.
-------------
mikel evins
mi...@reactivity.com
mikel evins
wrote on 2/10/00 6:17 PM:
> But why do you need the approval of a judge to defend yourself?
Because you want other disinterested third parties to be confident that you
are, in fact, defending yourself, and not committing a crime. Because you
want them to deal with you as an honest and law-abiding man, and not a
murderous outlaw.
> The issuer of credit is making me a loan. if it is an unsecured loan
> then he must rely on my good will to repay it. But it was a secured
> loan, the collateral was the bread which I purchased from him. I
> cannot repay his loan at this time because I ate the bread and have no
> money. I fully intend to repay when my circumstances change. Am I
> wrong to incur debt to stop my starvation. If you were starving would
> you just die? What if it were your family that needed the bread?
>
> According to the law I am wrong, on the side of villiany because I am
> forced to reduce myself to crime to survive.
You may be in a drastic situation, but that in itself does not oblige anyone
in particular to aid you. You depend upon their willingness to do so, or
else you force them to. The latter action is a crime. If you commit a crime
because you are in desperate straits then you may perhaps expect some degree
of understanding and mercy that you would not otherwise receive, but you
cannot count on it because, after all, a common criminal can always *claim*
to be in desperate straits in order to reduce the severity of his
punishment.
Sometimes life is hard.
> If you ignore my plight, you place yourself in a higher class. If you
> sympathize with my misfortune you would not need a court and laws, you
> would give me the bread to help me get back on my feet.
Ignoring your plight might be callous, or maybe it's just a judgement call;
as I say, it might be hard to tell you from a common criminal. But it
doesn't place anyone in higher or lower classes. We all have to deal with
the sometimes harsh exigencies of fate.
> Laws between people always divides society.
On the contrary; circumstance and conflicting goals divide people one from
another. Law is one of the ways that people attempt to knit society back
together in the face of such reversals.
Greg Bane
wrote:
>Let's say someone smashes into your parked car and causes about
>$300 of damage. They deny culpability and there aren't any
>witnesses except you. How will this situation "resolve itself"?
>
I will call the accidental driver Tim.
I assume you mean a hit and run accident. Then when I go to Tim's
house he says that he doesn't know what I'm talking about. I then
describe the accident in detail which convinces him that "I know the
Truth."
This is also a 'moment of truth'. This is Tim's chance to come clean.
I know the truth, he knows the truth, and he knows that I know the
truth. There are two paths diverging from this 'moment'.
path1: Either Tim continues his denial in the face of truth. In which
case, I can no longer deal with him in any way until he
confesses.Tim is iniquitous in his untruthfulness and I am righteous
in my truthfulness. Now it is up to Tim to repair the rift between us
and admit his involvement. The matter remains unresolved until this
occurs. He may have no reason to ever resolve this matter. If Tim
feels a strong need to resolve it at a later date then he will admit
to the truth and we move on to path2. In this case I must pay the
cost of repairs.
path2: Tim admits the accident happened, but denies responsiblity. I
then question him as to the circumstances surrounding the accident.
Was it an accident, was he negligent, was it a purposeful act of
vandalism? These are important questions to me because I am trying to
live a virtuous life. By maintaining my own virtue I can be sure that
I am righteous in my judgement. In this way I need no courts or Laws.
case 1: If Tim reveals that it was purely an accident because he just
happened to sneeze as he was passing my car, this caused him to swerve
ever so slightly, and he then scraped the entire side of my car. How
can I blame him for an accident? I know that people nowadays are
dependent on insurance to save them from accidental damages. In my
proposed anarchic world people would have to rely on themselves and
the goodwill of family and friends to recover these costs. Tim does
not admit culpability because it was an accident. I do not hold him
responsible because it was accidental. I must recover the costs
myself.
case 2: In questioning Tim reveals that he was doing a big bong hit,
and was having a serious head rush at the time of the accident, he
knows this is dangerously negligent behavior. Even though his reckless
behavior is evidence of his culpability, he refuses to pay damages.
This returns us to a state of dissociation. (path1).
case 3: Tim says that he did it on purpose (vandalism) and tells me to
"Fuck off and Die!". This is a more serious matter, even if Tim
doesn't tell me to fuck off. Tim has acted out in a violent manner.
In this case I must still dissociate from him, but I must also
increase my vigilance.
In a sufficiently virtuous society, people will not need laws and
judges to force them to do the right thing.
Do you think that humanity is hopelessly selfish?
I believe that we must act in a virtuous way, as an example, and teach
our children how to reason things through before they take action. I
think we can raise our children to be virtuous in their actions, that
is take other people and their community into account when making
decisions.
I think the present state of innumerable laws has tricked people into
thinking that personal judgment is unnecessary. Many people think that
as long as they conform to the law, they are good people. I think they
are losing their humanity. This is why I say laws divide people.
Greg Bane
(Constantinople) wrote:
>greg...@novia.net (Greg Bane) wrote in
><38a23187...@news.novia.net>:
>
>[. . .]
>
>>People in the lower class however does not recieve this
>>protection. They must resolve to skirt the law as best they can.
>>They do not posess the wherewithall to pay for fees and
>>insurance after they have been drained to a subsistance level by
>>taxation. They are often found in nonconformance with the law,
>>and are reluctant to claim it's protection. People in the lower
>>class do not recieve equal protection under the law. Also people
>>in the lower class cannot equally defend themselves for purely
>>economical reasons, they must depend on court appointed
>>defenders which is the worst defense.
>>
>>This inequality alone should persuade you that laws are a bad
>>idea.
>
>It seems to me that a lot of the tragedy that you allude to is
>caused by the state, with its monopoly of courts and of the
>enforced laws and regulations, not by third-party arbitration as
>such. In our current system, the people brought into court do not
>choose the court. The private courts that I mentioned would be
>private entities, and could not force anyone to use them to
>decide disputes. The idiotic and intrusive law that makes so many
>peaceful, harmless people into "lawbreakers" even though they are
>not bothering anyone else could not exist if courts were private.
>No one would pay for it.
>
Paying for it, is the crux of my dislike for A.C. Theory. All human
interaction under this system seems to be reduced to a monetary
exchange. This would not be a society I would participate in.
Greg Bane
wrote:
>In article <38a21954...@news.novia.net>, greg...@novia.net wrote:
>
>> Why do people need to put rules between them? I should be able to
>> make a deal on a handshake.
>
>You can, if the other party trusts you. If, however, you are making a
>deal that concerns a big chunk of your wealth, you need to draw up a
>contract, and be sure that you have a means to enforce it. The fact is
>you can't trust everyone. If the other guy rips you off, you don't want
>to lose everything. You need a reliable means of recovering what was
>lost--talking with the guy is not enough.
>
I would say, in my Lawless anarchy that you are reckless and unwise to
risk more than you can afford to lose. If you deal with people
familiar to you, then you will feel more confident in predicting their
behavior and so you will be more prudent in your deals.
If you lose your money because you are imprudent, reckless and unwise
then you will never be able to increase your wealth until you become
better at reasoning. (get better judgment).
Do you believe a piece of paper is a replacement for good judgement?
remaining previous argument cut....
Greg Bane
wrote:
>in article djarum98-57AA5A...@news.bu.edu, Matt at
>djar...@usa.net.invalid wrote on 2/10/00 4:50 PM:
>
>> In article <38a21954...@news.novia.net>, greg...@novia.net wrote:
>>
>>> This duality is part of the nature of
>>> all laws, and it is for this reason that I propose no laws between
>>> people. Let people know their neighbors and deal with them directly.
>>> Through the experience of continued relationship people will know what
>>> to expect from one another and consequently need no laws to remedy the
>>> unexpected behavior of strangers.
>>
>> This is similar to the arguments for reputational enforcement made by
>> anarcho-capitalists such as James Donald and David Friedman. I venture,
>> however, that for some types of activity, namely violence, there need to
>> be laws that proscribe it, and a means to enforce those laws.
>
>More to the point, there are and will be such laws, whether we like it or
>not. People have laws against murder -- whether statutory or customary --
>everywhere we look. There is variation in how murder is defined, variation,
>for example, in what is considered justifiable, but murder is everywhere
>illegal.
>
>I predict that if Greg Bane somehow eliminated laws against robbery and
>murder they would spontaneously reappear. I wonder how he would enforce his
>ban on laws -- his law against laws?
>
What I propose is the ultimate freedom for man. I propose that each
person make his own laws.I propose that no laws be forced on one
person by his neighbor. I propose that there be self enforcement.
Do you think that this would be chaos? I think that reasoning human
beings can police themselves well enough to coexist in harmony if they
are virtuous. I think that human beings are naturally social, and
would adopt for themselves laws which would tend to harmonize their
social interaction. Do you think it is the natural state of man to
seek conflict? I would not want to live with people who have not
reasoned out their own ideas of right and wrong. I believe in freedom,
and therefore propose each person reason for themselves their own
rules for interacting with other members of society.
I distrust other methods of government because they rarely take into
account the virtue of their participants. Mostly they seem to count on
citizens acting in a selfish way, and then pass Laws to restrict
behavior. We all know there are occassions were even taking anothers
life (murder) is acceptable. We also know that on occasion we may be
forced to choose between wrongs (the lesser of two evils). Yet people
seem to think this is a substitute for reasoning. I will blindly
follow the law and be alright.
Because laws, and especially large legal systems seem to remove people
from their virtue, I propose no laws between people.
Without their virtue people lose their humanity and become like
animals; selfish, brutish, and unenlightened. Some people under a
jurisdictional system may be cowardly, unfriendly, rash, and
untruthful, but I believe that laws and dependence on laws exacerbate
peoples vices by appearing to remove their need for good judgement.
What do you think? I'm full of shit again aren't I?
mikel evins
wrote on 2/11/00 9:28 PM:
> What I propose is the ultimate freedom for man. I propose that each
> person make his own laws.I propose that no laws be forced on one
> person by his neighbor. I propose that there be self enforcement.
Have you ever been robbed? I have. It seems to me that the fellow who robbed
me was obeying some self-defined law that I can't say I endorse. Judging by
crime statistics he was not alone. Do you think that the disappearance of
existing laws will have some magical effect on these folks' conception of
the laws they prefer to follow (and if so, how?), or do you think that their
decisions to risk the lives of others in order to take things away from them
is perfectly fine?
> I think that reasoning human
> beings can police themselves well enough to coexist in harmony if they
> are virtuous.
Obviously. Equally obviously they can brutalize one another for the purpose
of material gain. We know these things because people do both. The relevant
questions are whether you consider it important to discourage the latter
behavior and if so how you propose to do it.
> I would not want to live with people who have not
> reasoned out their own ideas of right and wrong. I believe in freedom,
> and therefore propose each person reason for themselves their own
> rules for interacting with other members of society.
That's all well and good, but I have different preferences: I prefer to
avoid living with people who *have* reasoned out their own ideas of right
and wrong and come to the wrong conclusions. I prefer the company of
unthinkingly honest people to that of thoughtful criminals.
> Without their virtue people lose their humanity and become like
> animals; selfish, brutish, and unenlightened. Some people under a
> jurisdictional system may be cowardly, unfriendly, rash, and
> untruthful, but I believe that laws and dependence on laws exacerbate
> peoples vices by appearing to remove their need for good judgement.
>
> What do you think? I'm full of shit again aren't I?
Essentially, yes. For one thing, you are reasoning backward. Law is not the
culprit; it does not remove people's virtue, turning them bestial. It's the
other way around: when someone decides to commit a crime, he sacrifices
virtue and becomes beastly. Proper law is what people agree is to be done
about it when it happens.
-------------
mikel evins
mi...@reactivity.com
Constantinople
>>It seems to me that a lot of the tragedy that you allude to is
>>caused by the state, with its monopoly of courts and of the
>>enforced laws and regulations, not by third-party arbitration
>>as such. In our current system, the people brought into court
>>do not choose the court. The private courts that I mentioned
>>would be private entities, and could not force anyone to use
>>them to decide disputes. The idiotic and intrusive law that
>>makes so many peaceful, harmless people into "lawbreakers" even
>>though they are not bothering anyone else could not exist if
>>courts were private. No one would pay for it.
>>
>Paying for it, is the crux of my dislike for A.C. Theory. All
>human interaction under this system seems to be reduced to a
>monetary exchange.
No, that's not true. Economics deals largely with exchange, but
that does not mean that any economist is claiming that all human
activity is exchange. That is simply a kind of human activity
which is easy to observe and study and think about mathematically
and for which it is possible to discern general patterns. It is
also something which almost everyone does, a lot.
>This would not be a society I would participate in.
Is this a general opinion? Payment is just voluntary exchange. I
scratch your back, you scratch mine. What do you propose as an
alternative to voluntary exchange? Do you propose that everything
be given as a gift? To each according to his need?
I have no trouble with such a system as long as the gifts are
voluntary. In an anarchy, of course everyone would be free to
give whatever they like to anyone. However, I don't expect it,
because I expect people to be as I observe them to be now.
G*rd*n
| ...
| culprit; it does not remove people's virtue, turning them bestial. It's the
| other way around: when someone decides to commit a crime, he sacrifices
| virtue and becomes beastly. Proper law is what people agree is to be done
| about it when it happens.
That's somewhat debatable. If people can act badly as
individuals, then they can act badly in groups; if some can
get power over others, they can (among other things) enact
bad laws and institutionalize their badness in other ways,
that is, construct an evil State. The law, then, can
obviously be a tool of oppression, all the worse, it may
be, for deceptively possessing good repute. I suppose
one may say such laws are "improper", but then the
question becomes who is to decide what's proper and what
isn't, which brings us back to the fundamental problem
already mentioned.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 2/4/00 }
The Weekly Report
Law is inherently repressive, made by the rich and the powerful to
benefit the rich and the powerful, aiding them in robbing the poor for
the little they've left.
Amos
--
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
THE WEEKLY REPORT
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/theweeklyreport.html
ARCHIVES
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/archives.html
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
"All these moments will be lost in time
like tears in rain". - BLADE RUNNER
mikel evins
2/12/00 7:12 AM:
> mikel evins <ev...@reactivity.com>:
> | ...
> | Essentially, yes. For one thing, you are reasoning backward. Law is not the
> | culprit; it does not remove people's virtue, turning them bestial. It's the
> | other way around: when someone decides to commit a crime, he sacrifices
> | virtue and becomes beastly. Proper law is what people agree is to be done
> | about it when it happens.
>
> That's somewhat debatable. If people can act badly as
> individuals, then they can act badly in groups; if some can
> get power over others, they can (among other things) enact
> bad laws and institutionalize their badness in other ways,
> that is, construct an evil State. The law, then, can
> obviously be a tool of oppression, all the worse, it may
> be, for deceptively possessing good repute. I suppose
> one may say such laws are "improper", but then the
> question becomes who is to decide what's proper and what
> isn't, which brings us back to the fundamental problem
> already mentioned.
There was a reason that I qualified it by saying 'proper' law. I assume
(with basis) that there is such a thing as proper law and that it can be
discovered. If that is so, then your above objection is not an
insurmountable problem. It's only a problem if there is not such thing as
proper law, or if it is not possible to discover what it is. Broad general
agreement on what 'justice' is argues to me that there is such a thing as
proper law and that it is discoverable.
-------------
mikel evins
mi...@reactivity.com
Greg Bane
wrote:
>in article 38a4e953...@news.novia.net, Greg Bane at greg...@novia.net
>wrote on 2/11/00 9:28 PM:
>
>> What I propose is the ultimate freedom for man. I propose that each
>> person make his own laws.I propose that no laws be forced on one
>> person by his neighbor. I propose that there be self enforcement.
>
>Have you ever been robbed? I have. It seems to me that the fellow who robbed
>me was obeying some self-defined law that I can't say I endorse. Judging by
>crime statistics he was not alone. Do you think that the disappearance of
>existing laws will have some magical effect on these folks' conception of
>the laws they prefer to follow (and if so, how?), or do you think that their
>decisions to risk the lives of others in order to take things away from them
>is perfectly fine?
>
I have been burglarized 3 times. I was angry and offended each time.
I have never been robbed because I am large ,strong, and have a
fearsome countenance. I suppose that stealing is a bad habit (vice)
for burglars, it is my understanding that they rationalize to
themselves a good reason to steal, get away with it once, and continue
until they are caught. One recent arrest in my neighborhood turned out
to be responsible for 42 burglaries. They are probably wrong in
stealing, but I do not know their circumstances and so I cannot judge
them right or wrong.
>> I think that reasoning human
>> beings can police themselves well enough to coexist in harmony if they
>> are virtuous.
>
>Obviously. Equally obviously they can brutalize one another for the purpose
>of material gain. We know these things because people do both. The relevant
>questions are whether you consider it important to discourage the latter
>behavior and if so how you propose to do it.
>
I discourage it through dissociation. I try to avoid associating with
'disgraceful' individuals. If these disgraceful people wish to
associate with me, they must admit to the truth and act in a contrite
manner, thereby they can attain a state of grace and return to a
virtuous life. If they insist on interacting with me ( robbing me,
stealing from me, or otherwise engaging in criminal behavior) then I,
to maintain my virtue, must choose to either remove them from my
presence, or move away from their neighborhood.
>> I would not want to live with people who have not
>> reasoned out their own ideas of right and wrong. I believe in freedom,
>> and therefore propose each person reason for themselves their own
>> rules for interacting with other members of society.
>
>That's all well and good, but I have different preferences: I prefer to
>avoid living with people who *have* reasoned out their own ideas of right
>and wrong and come to the wrong conclusions. I prefer the company of
>unthinkingly honest people to that of thoughtful criminals.
>
by 'unthinkingly honest people', I guess you mean "gullible" people
that you can exploit.
A virtuous lifestyle must be learned. Parents must teach their
children, when they are children. Parents must set an example by their
own virtuous behavior, they must also instruct their children, by
explaining the 'Reasoning' behind their virtuous behavior. If their
children understand how to reason out the virtuous solution to
conflicts they will then have reached the "Age of Reason" and have the
ability to live a virtuous life themselves. Being reasoning human
beings and maintaining their virtue they will pass this on to their
children.
>> Without their virtue people lose their humanity and become like
>> animals; selfish, brutish, and unenlightened. Some people under a
>> jurisdictional system may be cowardly, unfriendly, rash, and
>> untruthful, but I believe that laws and dependence on laws exacerbate
>> peoples vices by appearing to remove their need for good judgement.
>>
>> What do you think? I'm full of shit again aren't I?
>
>Essentially, yes. For one thing, you are reasoning backward. Law is not the
>culprit; it does not remove people's virtue, turning them bestial. It's the
>other way around: when someone decides to commit a crime, he sacrifices
>virtue and becomes beastly. Proper law is what people agree is to be done
>about it when it happens.
>
Many people I know blindly obey the law, without asking why is this a
Law? Are all laws, just laws? If some laws are unjust how can you
tell the difference if you do not have the ability to reason out just
behavior on your own?
If I can reason just from unjust on my own, why do I need laws?
Greg Bane
wrote:
The Law discussion has moved to a new thread. --> Law: (was...)
Greg Bane
>mikel evins <ev...@reactivity.com>:
>|>| ...
>|>| Essentially, yes. For one thing, you are reasoning backward. Law is not the
>|>| culprit; it does not remove people's virtue, turning them bestial. It's the
>|>| other way around: when someone decides to commit a crime, he sacrifices
>|>| virtue and becomes beastly. Proper law is what people agree is to be done
>|>| about it when it happens.
>
>G*rd*n at g...@panix.com wrote on
>| > That's somewhat debatable. If people can act badly as
>| > individuals, then they can act badly in groups; if some can
>| > get power over others, they can (among other things) enact
>| > bad laws and institutionalize their badness in other ways,
>| > that is, construct an evil State. The law, then, can
>| > obviously be a tool of oppression, all the worse, it may
>| > be, for deceptively possessing good repute. I suppose
>| > one may say such laws are "improper", but then the
>| > question becomes who is to decide what's proper and what
>| > isn't, which brings us back to the fundamental problem
>| > already mentioned.
>
>mikel evins <ev...@reactivity.com>:
>| There was a reason that I qualified it by saying 'proper' law. I assume
>| (with basis) that there is such a thing as proper law and that it can be
>| discovered. If that is so, then your above objection is not an
>| insurmountable problem. It's only a problem if there is not such thing as
>| proper law, or if it is not possible to discover what it is. Broad general
>| agreement on what 'justice' is argues to me that there is such a thing as
>| proper law and that it is discoverable.
>
>In that case, it seems hard to explain why we have so much
>political evil. We should have discovered the good a long
>time ago, possibly around the time of the wheel and fire.
>What happened?
>
The problem is that politicians,especially those who are lawyers,
think that law is a replacement for good reasoning. By good reasoning
I mean virtuous reasoning, that is considering the good of the 'whole'
community that is to be affected(or should I say infected) by the law
into account when the law is written. Most of recent law is written
for the expressed purpose of protecting a segment of society.
Supposedely to right a previous wrong. The result is a split in
society. This political evil, while trying to do good, causes social
inequality,and we all know were that leads.
G*rd*n
--
Constantinople
>On 13 Feb 2000 00:24:35 GMT, gor...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>The problem is that politicians,especially those who are
>lawyers, think that law is a replacement for good reasoning. By
>good reasoning I mean virtuous reasoning, that is considering
>the good of the 'whole' community that is to be affected(or
>should I say infected) by the law into account when the law is
>written. Most of recent law is written for the expressed
>purpose of protecting a segment of society. Supposedely to right
>a previous wrong. The result is a split in society. This
>political evil, while trying to do good, causes social
>inequality,and we all know were that leads.
It is not essential that law be created intentionally. When a
particular case is decided all that the judge needs to do is to
figure out what the best resolution for that particular case is.
Later on, other judges (or even the same judge) may use that
decision as a precedent on which to base their own decisions, for
a particular reason. What I have in mind is that those judges
might be accused by one party or the other of being biased, but
if they can point to this previous decision, and if they can show
that their decision is in all essentials identical with the
previous one, then they demonstrate to the losing party that the
decision is not biased. Well, that does not prove it, but that is
evidence for the disinterestedness of their decision.
In effect the judge creates a new law with his decision, because
future decisions are made in accordance with that initial
decision. But since there is no coercive power backing up that
decision with respect to its application in all future cases, the
judge does not exercise the same power that a legislator
exercises. He does not create the law by himself, but only with
the cooperation of all future judges, and it's much harder to
establish a tyrannical law in that way than through legislation.
It may be that judges as a group would be systematically biased
in favor of one segment of society at the expense of another, but
assuming that each judge was agreed upon in advance by both
parties in any dispute that he presides over, then I see no
particular reason to believe that he would exhibit a systematic
bias towards one sort of client over another.
Furthermore, a judge whose rulings are in tune with one party's
intuitive sense of justice cannot easily be used by the other
party to unexpectedly pull the rug out from under the first
party, as long as the first party acts in accordance with his own
sense of justice. I happen to think that most people have pretty
much the same sense of justice, and so it will be easy for two
people to find a judge who cannot easily be used by either one to
harm the other. This should tend to encourage the appearance of
judges whose rulings are just. And therefore, by extension, it
should tend to encourage the appearance of just law and to
discourage the appearance of unjust law.
James A. Donald
mikel evins <ev...@reactivity.com>:
> > There was a reason that I qualified it by saying 'proper' law. I
> > assume (with basis) that there is such a thing as proper law and
> > that it can be discovered. If that is so, then your above
> > objection is not an insurmountable problem. It's only a problem if
> > there is not such thing as proper law, or if it is not possible to
> > discover what it is. Broad general agreement on what 'justice' is
> > argues to me that there is such a thing as proper law and that it
> > is discoverable.
On 13 Feb 2000 00:24:35 GMT, gor...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> In that case, it seems hard to explain why we have so much political
> evil.
The explanation is simple: Evil people. And if they were not evil to
start with, political power will make them so.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1CeQqzEEMAJR4FRKeco1HUnqi6YQ+Sazk5kVAVwk
4vD06uwJwZE0SYLt8kJu/hRadQGeEgHoHwROCQOGZ
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald