Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 08:17:06 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Question for the "anarchists" in the crowd.  (Read 5535 times)
RodeoX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478


The revolution will be monetized!


View Profile
November 01, 2012, 07:20:30 PM
 #81

I think a system of anarchy would be overthrown by any type of organization, a king, a militia, anything.

The gospel according to Satoshi - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Free bitcoin in ICELAND - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1610684
1513023426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513023426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513023426
Reply with quote  #2

1513023426
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513023426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513023426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513023426
Reply with quote  #2

1513023426
Report to moderator
1513023426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513023426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513023426
Reply with quote  #2

1513023426
Report to moderator
1513023426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513023426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513023426
Reply with quote  #2

1513023426
Report to moderator
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 01, 2012, 07:37:23 PM
 #82

I think a system of anarchy would be overthrown by any type of organization, a king, a militia, anything.

Well, this isn't really the thread for it (even if the stated purpose of the thread has pretty much been hashed out), but AnCap (aka market anarchy) allows for defense quite simply. Defense companies. Like private police/military agencies. They'd compete in the marketplace, not on the field of battle.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
November 01, 2012, 08:07:50 PM
 #83

I think a system of anarchy would be overthrown by any type of organization, a king, a militia, anything.

Well, this isn't really the thread for it (even if the stated purpose of the thread has pretty much been hashed out), but AnCap (aka market anarchy) allows for defense quite simply. Defense companies. Like private police/military agencies. They'd compete in the marketplace, not on the field of battle.

Yeah, even I have to admit that the external security threat issue has long been hashed out, with historical examples to support it.  Even in the absence of defense companies, militias form readily when the society is under an external threat.  During and prior to the American Revolutionary War, militia companies formed by electing their captian from amongst their own membership, and had the right to withdraw from any militia company at any time before hostilities have already commenced.  They would agree in advance that once the shooting starts, anyone among the group who then turns 'yellow' under fire is endangering his peers due to lack of commitment.  This rarely happened during the Revolutionary War, but those that did this ever more rarely lived to see a trial of any sort.

Internal security is a different issue, but is also well hashed out.  There are numerous examples today of private security companies with varying degrees of competancy able to take over the work of public police forces at any time.  Most likely, the private security companies would also be the defense companies, but since collective defense is a much rarer risk it's possible that one defense company could be sub-contracted by a large number of smaller private security agencies.  This is similar to how "constables" function in my own city.  The Louisville Police Department draws it's legal authority from the county sherriff's office, but there are also two constables' offices in the county that also have similar legal authorities, but are not paid by the government in any meaningful way.  The constables' offices are technically elected positions, but are (in practice) simply held by some joint-owner of a pair of private security firms that hire the city cops for off duty gigs, such as for major event security at the convention center or bank branch security with full police powers.  If those two companies can't keep one of their own in the constable's seat, then they can't honor their contracts because city cops cannot be hired directly (with their full police powers intact) without the government title because the constables themselves are usually not cops themselves, but businessmen, and the police union would get sideways with the private companies if they didn't have some kind of "official" government title to cling to.

It should be obvious that, should the sherriff's office ever cease to exist, either one of these two companies woudl be both willing & able to step into the gap without skipping a beat.  There is already a smaller city (Jeffersontown) that "contracts out" their entire police force in a similar manner within the county itself, and there are numerous examples of smaller class cities doing similar things rather than directly hire a couple of their own for each of three shifts, seven days directly.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
420
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
November 02, 2012, 06:41:16 AM
 #84

i could do good

I think the role of government should be advisory, not forcefulness

Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS
the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2012, 08:44:36 PM
 #85

As a libertarian at heart, I respect the concept that governments cannot actually improve society (http://youtu.be/BNIgztvyU2U).  However, I have issues with the idea that a society without a traditional government (i.e. an institution with a monopoly on the use of force) can effectively manage the very small percentage of people who both have the ability to cause great & widespread harm and also refuse to refrain from doing so.

You are obviously not one of them. It's people like you that need society, and will go to any extent to get one. People like you have
no fucking clue what freedom and this reality is about. You're abomination. Afraid, weak, stupid = the ones that should not procreate.
Completely off-topic for the thread, but entirely apropos to your post, I found a wonderful quote today from Kevin Carson:

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because smart people treat authority as damage and route around it."

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
420
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
November 05, 2012, 02:14:44 AM
 #86

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because smart people treat authority as damage and route around it." - Kevin Carson

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because majority is more stupid than those in authority." - subSTRATA

hardly true

Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS
the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
deeplink
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


In cryptography we trust


View Profile
November 08, 2012, 07:40:18 PM
 #87

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because smart people treat authority as damage and route around it." - Kevin Carson

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because majority is more stupid than those in authority." - subSTRATA

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because smart people treat subSTRATA as damage and route around it."

Interesting thread by the way. Too bad one self-important kid who beliefs he knows something derails it on the last page or so.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
November 08, 2012, 07:46:25 PM
 #88

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because smart people treat authority as damage and route around it." - Kevin Carson

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because majority is more stupid than those in authority." - subSTRATA

"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because smart people treat subSTRATA as damage and route around it."

Interesting thread by the way. Too bad one self-important kid who beliefs he knows something derails it on the last page or so.

Dude, you're interfering with the 'ignore' function.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Rudd-O
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW
November 09, 2012, 12:05:19 AM
 #89

How would a (presumedly stable) anarchist society (ancap) have responded to Typhoid Mary without destroying itself

I don't want to discount the validity of your question -- it's a legit question, after all.

But I do want to put forth the following observation: systems to organize society can't be dismissed on the basis of ultra-extraordinary situations.  There will always be a "what if" that no system whatsoever can address properly.  The system is not a recipe for 100% perfect harmony and cooperation, and one made-up hypothetical scenario that is very unlikely cannot be used to say "See?  Your system doesn't work".  Just like the statement "man is a biped" cannot be proven to be false by saying "Imagine men coming from war without legs.  See?  'Man is a biped' is a lie!".

This, I think, is a thought that quite often gets lost in the frenzy to "prove" that this or that system is "bad" or "unworkable".

On the other hand, systems to organize society can and should be judged on their usual performance.  And when you do that, you'll gain a new disrespect for political systems.  Look at the miserable failure that are the contemporary "justice", "legislation", and "law enforcement" systems. Look at how horrible these systems are at resolving human conflict; they are so shitty that people actively avoid or dread resorting to them.  Look at how many people were slaughtered by their own rulers in the 20th century: 270 million human beings.  Resist a man in a blue costume because he is being unjust?  Chances are he'll kill or maim you, and blame you for it.

When you see reality over thought experiments, it becomes pretty clear that pretty much any other system (save perhaps for mass and total suicide) can dramatically improve these criminal disasters that are ruining people's lives right now.

So, honestly, who cares if voluntaryism can't "solve" the "Mary Typhoid" problem?  At least I know voluntaryism won't cause the mass murder of 300 million people, and marginalize / gulagize more people than that.  That is strictly better, and I'm pretty happy with that solution to human conflict.

Your house is up in flames and you're asking me whether my firetruck can put out a lit match.  Maybe let's focus on your house before it crumbles in ashes to the ground?

That is my humble view on the subject.  Thanks for your question, it is appreciated.

1FPwsMACGqCFtAxpMVHznHe7TkrHMRxB6M GPG key.  Only civil and rational replies accepted.  If you can't follow this flowchart or engage in verbal abuse, I'll point it out and add you to my ignore list.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!