How to run an Anarchy

[smellyBobby]

Cool I murder in my spare time for fun. I like the idea that everyone will think punishment is a silly concept and believe in unconditional forgiveness. I also own a weapons company and use the most advanced weapons available. It seems that I will be able to have more fun in anarchy.

Best of luck. What would you like your epitaph to read? "Troll to the end?"

Maybe we should create a fantasy forum so you can share ideas about your next fiction release.

[Tawsix]

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

You're not answering the question on how to stop a murderer from murdering again.  Forget the punishment or restitution, how do you stop them from continuing?

[Anonymous]

All I can say is that I would prefer people didn't deal out pain in the name of pleasure.

That's all it is in the end: a preference.

[Anonymous]

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

You're not answering the question on how to stop a murderer from murdering again.  Forget the punishment or restitution, how do you stop them from continuing?

You kill them/coerce them if continued destruction is truly ensured.

[smellyBobby]

Justice is pointless.

Definately not pointless.  Justice for a murderer (a real one, not an accidental one or an incidental one) is death.  Incarceration is not.

What is really gained in the end? A sense of egalitarian pleasure? How irrational.

I never said I was against it being used as a effective disincentive.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

Yea your right Atlas, you did not explicitly say you were against using it as a disincentive. I agree the whole concept of punishment is irrational if the taken from the communities perspective. It is a complete waste of resources. Unfortunately it is one of the many costs of human interaction. We either bear the costs of interaction in a lawless society or the costs in a lawful society.

[Anonymous]

Justice is pointless.

Definately not pointless.  Justice for a murderer (a real one, not an accidental one or an incidental one) is death.  Incarceration is not.

What is really gained in the end? A sense of egalitarian pleasure? How irrational.

I never said I was against it being used as a effective disincentive.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

Yea your right Atlas, you did not explicitly say you were against using it as a disincentive. I agree the whole concept of punishment is irrational if the taken from the communities perspective. It is a complete waste of resources. Unfortunately it is one of the many costs of human interaction. We either bear the costs of interaction in a lawless society or the costs in a lawful society.

You love the status-quo. You can't bear the idea of change.

[myrkul]

Yea your right Atlas, you did not explicitly say you were against using it as a disincentive. I agree the whole concept of punishment is irrational if the taken from the communities perspective. It is a complete waste of resources. Unfortunately it is one of the many costs of human interaction. We either bear the costs of interaction in a lawless society or the costs in a lawful society.

That's the most cogent and coherent thing I've ever seen you write. Keep this up, and I might actually make responding to you a habit.

[smellyBobby]

I would not be here if I didn't want change. I am not going to advocate an unproven method. Simple. In any engineering discipline, if there is going to be a complete overhaul of the system there will always be some sought of testing before proceeding with a dramatic change.

[Anonymous]

I would not be here if I didn't want change. I am not going to advocate an unproven method. Simple. In any engineering discipline, if there is going to be a complete overhaul of the system there will always be some sought of testing before proceeding with a dramatic change.

Unfortunately, the only way to test these things is going to take more than a dip of a leg or two. Our political systems have always been defined by dramatic change and revolution.

[myrkul]

I would not be here if I didn't want change. I am not going to advocate an unproven method. Simple. In any engineering discipline, if there is going to be a complete overhaul of the system there will always be some sort of testing before proceeding with a dramatic change.

Interestingly enough, That's exactly what Agorism is: The construction of a voluntary system within the rotting shell of the old, coercive system. Testing it, step by step, until it's robust enough to replace the old one.

[JA37]

So, on one hand, you say that people won't care about the consequences of their actions, and on the other, you say they don't. The people who care about consequences, will still care about consequences, and the people who don't, still won't. What I suggest, is making those consequences benefit the victim, rather than punish the victim and culprit, and benefit the State.

As to the example you gave, in a poor economy, jobs are scarce. In a good economy, workers are scarce.

I'm saying "people" is a very broad definition. There are are people who wouldn't commit a crime to save their life, and there are people who would in every possible opportunity, just for fun, and most of us are somewhere in between. Laws are there to stop the "in between" folks.

What I see you're saying is: First let's make ourself a victim, then let's compensate him/her.
I would prefer avoiding making victims if possible. Say, by putting up rules for how you are allowed to treat people?

Agreed with the economy analysis. So in a poor economy some people are expendable?

[myrkul]

What I see you're saying is: First let's make ourself a victim, then let's compensate him/her.
I would prefer avoiding making victims if possible. Say, by putting up rules for how you are allowed to treat people?

Agreed with the economy analysis. So in a poor economy some people are expendable?

What I'm saying is that the consequences we establish should not damage the victim again. And I never said there would not be rules. There are. Only one, but there are rules. (if you need a reminder, go check the first post)

In a poor economy, unfortunately, people become expendable. It's a sad state of affairs, and one that Anarchism/Voluntarism seeks to remedy by removing the factors holding the economy back.

[em3rgentOrdr]

I would not be here if I didn't want change. I am not going to advocate an unproven method. Simple. In any engineering discipline, if there is going to be a complete overhaul of the system there will always be some sort of testing before proceeding with a dramatic change.

Interestingly enough, That's exactly what Agorism is: The construction of a voluntary system within the rotting shell of the old, coercive system. Testing it, step by step, until it's robust enough to replace the old one.

Indeed, bitcoin is one small part of this test.  By using bitcoin, everyone here is helping us construct a voluntary system in the shell of the coercive money monopoly, whether intentionally or not
 .  I thank everyone here for their participation and help.  Bitcoin is a crucial piece of infrastructure necessary to build up the voluntary society, as we have been seeking an unregulated peer-to-peer currency for quite some time now, unlike gold which is too heavy and impractical to carry around or exchange over long distances.

So thank you, smellyBobby.

[lathomas64]

So who all were the recommended reading authors for this thread? it was split up between a number of posts.

[myrkul]

This one has everybody in it:

This bears the earmarks of someone who's not done a lot of study, but has applied a lot of thought.

Some suggestions:

Murray Rothbard
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Samuel Konkin III

Climb up on the shoulders of some giants. (Yes, I intentionally put conflicting ideologies in there)

I'd also add Kevin Carson and Anthony DeJasay to that list

Don't forget Lysander Spooner, you spoony bard!

There's a nice assortment of various 'stripes' of anarchy there.

[lathomas64]

Thanks for allowing me to be lazy myrakul

reformatted:
Murray Rothbard
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Samuel Konkin III
Kevin Carson
Anthony DeJasay
Lysander Spooner

[myrkul]

Yup. Note that each and every one of those people will disagree with the others on at least one point, and many will completely contradict. That way, you can form your own opinions, while still having some very smart people to give you advice.

[NghtRppr]

To be honest, for premeditated murder, and serial/mass murder, I'd probably give the killer to the deceased's next of kin, and turn my back.

That's fair. Ideally, if A kills B then we would put B's dead body in one chamber of a machine and A's live body in the other chamber of the machine and transfer A's life to B. Since we don't have a machine like that, the next best thing is to give A's life to B's heirs and they can do whatever they want with it, including public execution.

[JA37]

To be honest, for premeditated murder, and serial/mass murder, I'd probably give the killer to the deceased's next of kin, and turn my back.

That's fair. Ideally, if A kills B then we would put B's dead body in one chamber of a machine and A's live body in the other chamber of the machine and transfer A's life to B. Since we don't have a machine like that, the next best thing is to give A's life to B's heirs and they can do whatever they want with it, including public execution.

The blood thirst here is scary. How does another murder help anything? It just creates more victims. Even a murderer has family that cares about him/her. It might prevent more murders, although it's not the only way, and who knows if the person would ever kill again? And that's assuming that no mistake has been done finding the killer. What if you managed to find and kill an innocent, then what? Does another murder put that right?

[myrkul]

To be honest, for premeditated murder, and serial/mass murder, I'd probably give the killer to the deceased's next of kin, and turn my back.

That's fair. Ideally, if A kills B then we would put B's dead body in one chamber of a machine and A's live body in the other chamber of the machine and transfer A's life to B. Since we don't have a machine like that, the next best thing is to give A's life to B's heirs and they can do whatever they want with it, including public execution.

The blood thirst here is scary. How does another murder help anything? It just creates more victims. Even a murderer has family that cares about him/her. It might prevent more murders, although it's not the only way, and who knows if the person would ever kill again? And that's assuming that no mistake has been done finding the killer. What if you managed to find and kill an innocent, then what? Does another murder put that right?

Read fully the original post of mine that was quoted.