How to run an Anarchy

[dutt]

You need guns, lots of guns.

[MoonShadow]

You need guns, lots of guns.

Those we have.

[Perof]

IMO it depends on what your running before the anarchy.

If you run a capitalist OS it'd be difficult to maintain lawlessness because of, yes, all that organized crime that comes with it, black markets ect. Those people like rules, rules create markets, markets create boundaries. Just like governments they occupy territory with street soldiers and killers in reserve. Claiming land as their own. Buying land with bodies.

To run an anarchy properly, you need community. Thb you may even need structure at some point, but as long as it remains a decentralized localized collective authority I consider it lawlessness as no one explicitly stated making laws was against the rules of anarchy. Not everyone will choose to abide by these laws and that's why you need community to make these people feel alienated and push them out of the community like a child from a mother's womb. Rejecting those who would be better suited elsewhere. In other communities. Alternatively a loosely affiliated nomadic lifestyle of people roaming, not having any guidelines to follow at all. Free to join as soon as you step away from the clusters of humanity. Until you find you're own little place to carve out that is.

Certainly violence would be a problem, but when is it not?

The point of a strong community would primarily be to retaliate against thieves and strengthen the bonds held by the neighborhood. Effectively enabling the protection (say of women and children) without paying the taxation. Indeed social connection is the a most powerful tool of the people.
 Crime would likely be targeted at people who have done something to provoke a grudge if you can wrap your head around that. Generally by the people who cannot be persuaded to live any other way. These people would likely run into trouble more often than others. Putting their lives at risk and potentially causing fatal incidents to occur at a higher rate than say a person raising livestock(doing anything else). Think wild wild west without the need for a sheriff. A self sustaining system of crime and punishment without the need for taxation or military.

No less is desirable. Anarchy is not crime. Anarchy allows crime to work itself out. Which I believe it does. Criminals reproduce with criminals then the criminals keep crime in the family. Then the family has a significantly reduced chance at surviving than a normal family. Seeing as that family has a lot of criminal opponents. People die. Only the strongest remain to profit.

Then only the fittest people, those who refuse to be victimized by the thieves, extortionists, thugs are strong enough to survive the onslaught of fraudsters, scammers with their lively-hoods intact.

Which is where community comes in again. Those willing to work together, like organized criminals, will always get ahead of the rugged individual. Which is why the concept of anarchy as this sort of free for all every man for himself scenario will never work. Because it is already implemented. It's been labeled the free market economy. Fraudsters paradise built of the blood of the innocent. Where cheap drugs and insurance policy reigns over government. The prisons make more money than the artists because of all the return costumers.

The issue is race primarily. You see race interferes with community. Racism causes people to behave strangely and often we have seen nations formed more on genetic (alt. religious) guidelines than physical boundaries. Perceived racial superiority driving one race to ban together to subjugate another. As a unified people or perhaps it just happens by chance, regardless it happens.....a lot. It seems conquering the deep seated race hatred programmed into the administration, prison system and law enforcement agencies is the only viable chance we have at achieving a state of global self perpetuating anarchy.

Anarchy in the modern day. Say in America would be very violent because of the sadism perpetuated by our culture. The hypocrisy and already considerably violent media (socialization) is a bad combo for lawlessness. Oh and then there's all the guns. It would be difficult because our community is shattered and fragmented like our environment. The social atmosphere can be suffocating and it really doesn't inspire what I would call a sense of strong community. Given the loose bonds of trust and overbearing paranoia, yes a lot of people would die if we just up and got rid of all forms of ruling class organization. Eh....

I especially hate it when the police officer tells me I'm driving my car to fast, what does he know?

Yeah fuck that shit.

[myrkul]

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)

[LokeRundt]

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

[em3rgentOrdr]

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!

[vector76]

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

What makes you think there would be no recourse? Binding arbitration and mediation are the cornerstones of AnCap Society.

Suits presume law.  Without law, you don't have suits, you have complaints.  Arbitration and mediation are also mechanisms of law.  Without law you have non-binding discussions.  You keep referring to the benefits of the legal system while also presuming its absence.


If binding arbitration and mediation are cornerstones of AnCap Society, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are binding without law.

A different angle on the same question is, how are contracts are enforced without law?

[em3rgentOrdr]

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

What makes you think there would be no recourse? Binding arbitration and mediation are the cornerstones of AnCap Society.

Suits presume law.  Without law, you don't have suits, you have complaints.  Arbitration and mediation are also mechanisms of law.  Without law you have non-binding discussions.  You keep referring to the benefits of the legal system while also presuming its absence.


If binding arbitration and mediation are cornerstones of AnCap Society, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are binding without law.

A different angle on the same question is, how are contracts are enforced without law?

[Facepalm] dude,do you even know what Anarcho-Capitalism is and how its propenets claim it operates?  Have you at the minimum looked it up on wikipedia?

[JA37]

Laws do not prevent anything. They outline consequences. These consequences often do nothing to help the victim, and often do harm to them (charging them to support the person, for instance)

As to you losing your house because you hired a 'Lazy asshat', No. The lazy asshat might, but not you. At least, as long as you can find the lazy asshat. Call it incentive to do due diligence.

Yes, let's argue semantics. That's productive.
Bad consequences for an action prevents you from taking that action, in most cases. Hence laws do prevent things.
How does safety standards laws harm those affected by it? It could hurt the profits of the firms, but then we're back to externalizing costs again. "It's cheaper to actually pay the guy who loses his arm $1mil than to fix the machines who take an arm a year from our employees". And as long as the safety standards are applied equally the playing field is even for everyone competing in the market.

I have a feeling that you've never had anything to do with running a company. It's hard enough to get people to take actions and show initiative. If they are personally responsible for unintended consequences they won't do anything not explicitly told. And finding out who did what and when in a situation where there's a punishment waiting for the person who did wrong is hard. Ask any policeman. So the end result is still that I would be knee deep in 'trouble' in any company of significant size, since it's nearly impossible to know what everyone is doing at any given time.

Look, I know the current system isn't the best, and I'm willing to change it to something better. AnCap isn't it imho.

[vector76]

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

What makes you think there would be no recourse? Binding arbitration and mediation are the cornerstones of AnCap Society.

Suits presume law.  Without law, you don't have suits, you have complaints.  Arbitration and mediation are also mechanisms of law.  Without law you have non-binding discussions.  You keep referring to the benefits of the legal system while also presuming its absence.


If binding arbitration and mediation are cornerstones of AnCap Society, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are binding without law.

A different angle on the same question is, how are contracts are enforced without law?

[Facepalm] dude,do you even know what Anarcho-Capitalism is and how its propenets claim it operates?  Have you at the minimum looked it up on wikipedia?

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Consider international relations.  There are matters of convention and international "law" and treaties, and individual countries can make judgements about the actions and interactions of other countries.  The UN can pass resolutions saying what you're doing is bad, and can "authorize" individual countries to take violent action.

Israel and the Palestinians have a dispute.  How can they have a binding agreement if they do not recognize the "authority" of whoever is judging compliance?  They can have an agreement, and they can make promises, but they are not binding in the sense of being compelled to follow them.


Can someone ignore a judgement against them?  If not, aren't they being coerced?  If so, how can anything be binding?

Perhaps a better question is when can someone ignore a judgement against them?  When they don't have a second court that offers a different opinion?  When their gang of enforcers is smaller than the plaintiff's gang of enforcers?

[myrkul]

Yes, let's argue semantics. That's productive.
Bad consequences for an action prevents you from taking that action, in most cases. Hence laws do prevent things.
How does safety standards laws harm those affected by it? It could hurt the profits of the firms, but then we're back to externalizing costs again. "It's cheaper to actually pay the guy who loses his arm $1mil than to fix the machines who take an arm a year from our employees". And as long as the safety standards are applied equally the playing field is even for everyone competing in the market.

I have a feeling that you've never had anything to do with running a company. It's hard enough to get people to take actions and show initiative. If they are personally responsible for unintended consequences they won't do anything not explicitly told. And finding out who did what and when in a situation where there's a punishment waiting for the person who did wrong is hard. Ask any policeman. So the end result is still that I would be knee deep in 'trouble' in any company of significant size, since it's nearly impossible to know what everyone is doing at any given time.

Look, I know the current system isn't the best, and I'm willing to change it to something better. AnCap isn't it imho.

That's where you're wrong: Laws don't stop squat. Next time you get mugged, remind them that they're breaking a law. That'll stop 'em for sure. Better yet, keep a copy of the relevant statute in your breast pocket. That way, when they shoot you, the law against murder will deflect the bullet.

As for unsafe working conditions, Would you work at a machine that regularly mangled people? Do you suppose that everyone aside from you is a complete moron? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then perhaps there do need to be standards in place to protect you from yourself. I suspect that both are 'no', however.

As to the rest, what that boils down to is: "If people actually had to think about the consequences of their actions, nothing would get done!" I'm sorry, I call bullshit on that one.

[myrkul]

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

[vector76]

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

[myrkul]

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

I'd say not being able to buy a meal or find a place to sleep is a better punishment than 'three hots and a cot'.

[billyjoeallen]

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

Ostracism is one type of opportunity cost. Namely, the opportunity to interact socially. There are many, many types of opportunity costs than can be imposed, none of which violate the NAP.

[vector76]

So everyone runs some sort of credit check before selling a sandwich.  Gotcha.

[myrkul]

So everyone runs some sort of credit check before selling a sandwich.  Gotcha.

And when he's out of cash?

[MoonShadow]

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

I'd say not being able to buy a meal or find a place to sleep is a better punishment than 'three hots and a cot'.

Bear in mind, also, that in such a society that generally honors the NAP, there will be those who will not.  The criminal would have to deal with being labeled a criminal, which largely removes that person's expectations of civil support in the event that another criminal were to take advantage of them.  Most people would simply call that karma, whether or not the second criminal were himself blacklisted.

[JA37]

That's where you're wrong: Laws don't stop squat. Next time you get mugged, remind them that they're breaking a law. That'll stop 'em for sure. Better yet, keep a copy of the relevant statute in your breast pocket. That way, when they shoot you, the law against murder will deflect the bullet.

As for unsafe working conditions, Would you work at a machine that regularly mangled people? Do you suppose that everyone aside from you is a complete moron? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then perhaps there do need to be standards in place to protect you from yourself. I suspect that both are 'no', however.

As to the rest, what that boils down to is: "If people actually had to think about the consequences of their actions, nothing would get done!" I'm sorry, I call bullshit on that one.

Do you actually believe that the drug addict/ADHD/schizophrenic who robs people on the street are the same that sits in a boardroom and makes calculated decisions about what actions the company should take next? Are you thick or are you just trying to make a cheap point? I'm hoping the latter, although it's a bit insulting. Laws stops normal people from committing crimes. People who care about consequences. The mentally ill/drugged up/desperate don't.

No, I don't think people are morons. Far from it. I do however think that the "It won't happen to me" mindset is quite common. And it usually don't. Until it does.
Given a choice I don't think anyone would work in an unsafe environment, but not all have that choice.
I can tell you a story about a friend of mine who was helping a company outsource parts of their production to a country in Africa. The production caused hazardous gases but when he looked at the factory none of the workers had any protective gear, and the ventilation was insufficient. When he questioned this the manager just pointed to outside the gate and the odd 200 people sitting there. "If someone gets sick, we just take another worker".
This used to be the case in most westernised countries too some 100 years ago. Going to work used to be dangerous. Now it's not. Why is this a problem for you?

As to weather or not people would actually do something if they had to think about consequences. I'm sure some would. But if the negative consequences are greater than the reward, I think not. Better safe than sorry. I'll just go ask my manager what I should do next. Let him worry about the consequences of what we do.

[myrkul]

Do you actually believe that the drug addict/ADHD/schizophrenic who robs people on the street are the same that sits in a boardroom and makes calculated decisions about what actions the company should take next? Are you thick or are you just trying to make a cheap point? I'm hoping the latter, although it's a bit insulting. Laws stops normal people from committing crimes. People who care about consequences. The mentally ill/drugged up/desperate don't.

As to weather or not people would actually do something if they had to think about consequences. I'm sure some would. But if the negative consequences are greater than the reward, I think not. Better safe than sorry. I'll just go ask my manager what I should do next. Let him worry about the consequences of what we do.

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.