Bitcoin Forum

...that I don't think that anarchists on this forum, or anywhere else, have any realistic argument.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_virginia_girl_found_eating_herself_in_cage_in_mobile_home_parents_brian_and_shan.html?obref=obinsite

And I don't eat apples because penguins huddle together for warmth. What're you getting at?

Non sequitur.

I don't find it surprising in the least.  If we continue on the path we currently are this is going to be our society in not too distant future

My point here is that people like this exist.  And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists.  To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.

I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.

People may be born with all sorts of tendencies, but I do not believe this kind of people would exist if they had the chance not to. They are simply conditioned to be such

How do you figure that these people are conditioned to keep one child in a cage and possiblely kill another and bury it next to the shed?  Do you think that they were raised this way?

Clearly this is a government failure. In the world you are describing, these people would have become police officers.

I think we are all animals and put ourselves first. The only thing that prevents society from such things is moral and environment in which they live. What today's "you are the best, you are worth it, you are individual" culture does is makes us compromise our moral more and more. This is just an extreme case of that and isolation from general society where other factors like fear of punishment against such things exist.
For majority of people, especially with strong ego, it is quite difficult to grasp that what they perceive as reality is only in their heads and it can be very different.

We don't need a government for that. There will still be collective self-defense under anarchism. The only difference is that it will be paid for voluntarily and there will be competition among services.

Of course, in other cases there will be firms that take cases like this on contingency. They will rescue the child and then demand restitution from the parents for their services. You really need to delve into the literature and start looking for solutions to problems instead of just settling on whatever objections you can come up with.

I still consider private security/defense and 'phyles' to be sort of government in it's own right.  These kind of solutions aren't anarchy.  BTW, I've read many of the documents that anarchists point me to, and this is one objection that I've never seen well handled.  I'm not saying that what we have is any good at identifying criminal sociopaths either, but once identified the system we have does a very good job of punishment.  That is, in fact, the one thing that it's good at.

Even in the 'phyles' type of voluntary minarchy described in The Diamond Age, a phyle wouldn't have the right to take these children away from their parents, even if they had the motivation.  At a minimum, the parents would have to be compensated for the children taken from them, because in that imaginary system children are legally and economicly the property of their parents.

The current system isn't that great at punishing criminal sociopaths. It's much better at putting them in power.

You said it like it's a bad thing. Sociopaths are way better at making rational decisions

If what you need is someone who is good at killing and oppressing people, then yes, a sociopath is ideal. Personally I think that's a bad thing.

You are mixing psychopaths with sociopaths

That's your definition of anarchy. My definition differs from yours. I'd prefer to avoid debates over which definitions are "right" and instead focus on the meaning behind the words. I consider anarchy perfectly capable of having all sorts of elaborate rules and structures, as long as they are all voluntary with violence only ever being used in self-defense.


Well, there's your problem!

I always get those mixed up. I have a hard time determining the real-world difference between them.

I suppose that depends on how one defines "criminal".  The halls of prisons are filled with unsuccessful  and ignorant sociopaths, alongside the non-violent drug offenders.  While the halls of Congress and the Pentagon are filled with successful and intelligent sociopaths.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html

Socialpath and pyschopath are crafty people really good at imitating normal people, and they're not necessary criminals..

Congressmen, I bet are just mostly normal people with 1 or 2 percents pyschopath mixed in.t

When we lack economic rationality, we tend to let insitutions incentives to drive destructive behaviors.

Insanity is what kill humanity, not a secret cabal of evil socialpath.

You are concerned that ordinary people won't able to use violence against such kinds of sociopaths.  But this is a non-sequentior against an argument against anarchy.  Anarchists aren't necessarily against violence.  But rather we (I should say "I") are against institutionalized violence by a single organization with a monopoly on coercion.

A sociopath can't care for people, but he can care for a person (difference between public/private relationships)
A psychopath can't care for either.

I don't know in which anarchist "guidebook" you read that the life of a child is considered the property of its parents. The life of a being is its own. If the child makes a case of being poorly treated by its parents and tries to break free, it is the child's right, and if the parents oppose it by force, then there is coercion and concept of defending one's life and protecting a person in danger apply perfectly.

Government claims responsibility for keeping us safe, fails, therefore we need government.

Of course legitimate use of force exists. What doesn't follow is that you have to use illegitimate force (steal from innocents, from ex.) in order to keep legitimate uses of force.

A very basic video for better understanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o
:D

To be a government it has to do one of the following at least:

• Coercively maintain a monopoly, particularly a monopoly on ultimate decision concerning conflicts (Justice).
• Coercively finance themselves (taxation/theft)

If they're not initiating force or threat either to tax or to keep their geographical monopoly, they can't be considered governments.


Children are not slaves of their parents, who told you that?

You just whack them and be done with it. Not sure what's the difference between that and using police to arrest them and put them in jail.

No monopoly of force does not mean no legitimate uses of force ever.  Using force to help protect someone from someone else (or doing it yourself) is perfectly valid.

Does going to church really make people seem more trustworthy, or only among other church-goers?

People with a common imaginary friend tend to trust each other

I'm sure you can see the difference between murder and inprisonment. At least I hope so. Otherwise you should seek help.

The point is getting rid of a threat to society right? Both methods achieve the same effect, the first one being the most efficient.

The couple in question doesn't seem to be a threat to society, just to their own offspring. Should we kill them anyway, just to be on the safe side? Who else should we go after while we're at it?

You are right, not a threat to society but maybe only to their neighborhood. If I was their neighbor I would kill them anyway to be on the safe side since they are clearly very mentally unstable and because I'd feel good about rescuing the kid.

Ah, maybe. There are lots of people who may be a threat. You have a lot of people to kill.

This isn't a case of may be a threat, if the story in the OP is factual, these people are a threat and there is evidence to prove it.

 what if another neighbor considers you a threat because they don't see it the same way as yourself.

Then I have a big problem obviously. In reality though I would never have acted in the first place if I wasn't sure I'd have the support of the rest. If the rest instead supported the caging of children then it means I'm in hostile territory and should get the hell outta there.

I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.

Putting a child in a cage long enough to result in the child eating it's own skin in an attempt to survive is enough criminal negligence to require complete removal from society, imo. At this point the parents have clearly expressed their ability to initiate force against others and should have no expectation of gentle treatment at the hands of others.

I agree, I wouldn't handle them gently if they came anywhere near me or my family.

But I wouldn't go out of my way to have them whacked either.

That's fine. The world is big so I don't think your school of thought would end up clashing with mine over our key differences if we lived in anarchy. I guess I would just go to a place where people think like me and like to take care of problems quickly and efficiently rather than fairly and rightly (which in my opinion would be slow and inefficient).

And you wouldn't go out of your way if I went out of mine to whack them. That's the beauty of anarchy. On a more fundamental level, these people have given up on their right to live by forcefully putting the life of another in danger. As such, I have no responsibility to respect their life and a legitimate motive in opposing these people with force. You, on your end, have no motive to stop me from harming them in my attempt to save the child.