To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[Anonymous]

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

[Sovereign]

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Wait, wouldn't the man with the biggest gun (governments today) be the centralized authority?

Good try though .

[NghtRppr]

We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Only if most people are violent assholes, in which case, laws won't do us any good anyways. There also isn't any finality in disputes already. I can take it all the way up the courts and if I don't like the ruling then I can lobby the government to change the law. If we are in a disagreement over a piece of land and you win the court case, guess what, the government can just pass a law granting me whatever I want, some new ordinance that says I get to do whatever I want. The only final arbiter in any dispute is death.

[AyeYo]

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Wait, wouldn't the man with the biggest gun (governments today) be the centralized authority?

Good try though .

Yes, that's exactly what a centralized authority is: the man with the biggest gun.  Congrats, captain obvious.

[Anonymous]

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Wait, wouldn't the man with the biggest gun (governments today) be the centralized authority?

Good try though .

Yes, that's exactly what a centralized authority is: the man with the biggest gun.  Congrats, captain obvious.

..and you love these monopolies.

[AyeYo]

We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Only if most people are violent assholes, in which case, laws won't do us any good anyways. There also isn't any finality in disputes already. I can take it all the way up the courts and if I don't like the ruling then I can lobby the government to change the law. If we are in a disagreement over a piece of land and you win the court case, guess what, the government can just pass a law granting me whatever I want, some new ordinance that says I get to do whatever I want. The only final arbiter in any dispute is death.

There's a major difference though.  If you lose the court case at the centralized court, AND you fail to get the law changed, you're going to be locked away by the centralized authority and you aren't going to have a chance to kill me.  The government can do that now because the government will always have a bigger gun than anyone else.

In Liberland, there's no one to lock me up.  There's no central court, so I can go to whatever court will rule in my favor (or even my own court that I preside over).  There's no government to lobby for change.  I make you do whatever I want as long as I've got a bigger gun than you.

[Anonymous]

We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Only if most people are violent assholes, in which case, laws won't do us any good anyways. There also isn't any finality in disputes already. I can take it all the way up the courts and if I don't like the ruling then I can lobby the government to change the law. If we are in a disagreement over a piece of land and you win the court case, guess what, the government can just pass a law granting me whatever I want, some new ordinance that says I get to do whatever I want. The only final arbiter in any dispute is death.

There's a major difference though.  If you lose the court case at the centralized court, AND you fail to get the law changed, you're going to be locked away by the centralized authority and you aren't going to have a chance to kill me.  The government can do that now because the government will always have a bigger gun than anyone else.

In Liberland, there's no one to lock me up.  There's no central court, so I can go to whatever court will rule in my favor (or even my own court that I preside over).  There's no government to lobby for change.  I make you do whatever I want as long as I've got a bigger gun than you.

You see, it isn't going to be easy to get a bigger gun. You actually have to work in favor of what the people are willing to pay for.

[LastBattle]

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.

When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.

Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

I was unaware that a lack of government would result in people going apeshit because they can.

Also, good luck using that stockpile of guns on your own. It would be fun to see you attempt to man a single tank without a gunner or driver against ten tanks that have both.

Assuming you find people willing to use those guns (since otherwise it doesn't matter how many/how large your guns are since they will just be collecting dust), good luck keeping them paid and happy compared to what they could get from a legitimate organization.

You haven't thought things through very well, have you?

[Anonymous]

He thinks that people magically capture 90% of the market.

[NghtRppr]

He thinks that people magically capture 90% of the market.

No, he thinks that people with the biggest guns can just take what they want. But to get the biggest guns they already have to have the money in the first place i.e. his argument is circular. I've already debunked his "go to whatever court I want to" argument before so I see no point in rehashing it but just to review, nobody is going to do business with you unless you agree to abide by a respectable court and no court is going to be respectable unless they have a solution for disputes between other courts viz. yet another court that both will defer to in disputes. He makes a bunch of arguments that are plausible albeit naive but don't stand up to scrutiny. The only person he's convincing is himself.

[AyeYo]

He thinks that people magically capture 90% of the market.

No, he thinks that people with the biggest guns can just take what they want. But to get the biggest guns they already have to have the money in the first place i.e.

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

[JA37]

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....

[AyeYo]

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....

That's where the quote in my sig comes in.  We have the impossible task of making a system that is powerful enough to control all those in it, even very powerful corporate entities and rich folk, but we must keep it from being hijacked by any one group or from turning tyrannical itself.

[LastBattle]

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....

That's where the quote in my sig comes in.  We have the impossible task of making a system that is powerful enough to control all those in it, even very powerful corporate entities and rich folk, but we must keep it from being hijacked by any one group or from turning tyrannical itself.

Abolition of private property followed by the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat ought to do the trick.

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

There are about a million problems with this argument, so I will provide a couple samples (some of which may or may not apply, depending on HOW the ancap society came into existence):

-What money? The government issued monopoly money would be worthless, which could (in the case of, say, large banks) make them powerless.
-Many of the rich and powerful (who have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, as you so eloquently put it) are rich and powerful because of government contracts, government subsidies, government regulations which insulate them from competition, government provided monopolies, etc. Which would not exist in an anarchist world, obviously.
-If something caused the state to collapse in on itself, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would come out of the blue with the government-backed corporations intact. Depending on how the state came to fall, they could have been weaned and very heavily weakened (democratic change, economic troubles resulting in collapse), been destroyed directly (violent revolution), etc.

Having dealt with those specific rich and powerful, lets assume that this system has been in place for a long enough time that previously state backed enterprises are gone:

-How would they company hiring an army make its money initially, though? Imperialism is an expensive venture, highly risky, and the rate of return would only be high against a target that likely was very powerful in its own right (say, another large company with its own large security force, not to mention any volunteer militias and private defense agencies nearby).
-Assuming they succeeded, how would they keep up momentum? To return the initial investment for the invasion force, they would have to conquer very large amounts of land, which would piss off large amounts of people in a major way, not only the people occupied but also their relatives, people with knowledge of the invasion, etc. If they pissed off people in this way, ignoring large scale PDAs and militias for a second, they would be plagued by constant guerrilla activity, where a handful of guys with old guns would be on the same playing field as an army with high tech equipment (though Imperialist Co. would have to pay more for an army with high tech equipment, which would require more conquests to pay off the initial investment, which would leave them with even more enemies and with them right where they started), as Afghanistan and Iraq are demonstrating.
-Why would people continue to do business with them after they began the attacks? Once they were acting like criminals (or whatever you want to call them), the negative publicity would be a huge hit on their initial industry, regardless of what it is. The only industry that could conceivably make a profit from all of this would be a PDA, but they would (A) have plenty of competition out to wipe them out and (B) wouldn't have many honest customers after the attacks (would you hire a company for protection that ran the risk of suddenly turning around and seizing your property?).

A legitimate concern would be anarchist countries beside jealous countries with governments. A government, through taxation, monetary controls, etc would not want an alternative to them with a better deal right next door, so they would have a very good reason to throw everything at annexing the anarchists while they still held the advantage of manpower, etc. That would be an actual danger, though it would entirely depend on the circumstances and isn't any problem with the anarchist system itself, per se.

Also, what prevents a corporation from doing this now? I don't mean just anywhere; the US could never be conquered that way; but what about a small, relatively poor country? JP Morgan could probably hire a large enough army to take over, say, Honduras. The problem is that that sort of thing isn't profitable nor is it considered to be acceptable by most people. That would not change if the government was gone.

[AyeYo]

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....

That's where the quote in my sig comes in.  We have the impossible task of making a system that is powerful enough to control all those in it, even very powerful corporate entities and rich folk, but we must keep it from being hijacked by any one group or from turning tyrannical itself.

Abolition of private property followed by the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat ought to do the trick.

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

There are about a million problems with this argument, so I will provide a couple samples (some of which may or may not apply, depending on HOW the ancap society came into existence):

-What money? The government issued monopoly money would be worthless, which could (in the case of, say, large banks) make them powerless.
-Many of the rich and powerful (who have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, as you so eloquently put it) are rich and powerful because of government contracts, government subsidies, government regulations which insulate them from competition, government provided monopolies, etc. Which would not exist in an anarchist world, obviously.
-If something caused the state to collapse in on itself, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would come out of the blue with the government-backed corporations intact. Depending on how the state came to fall, they could have been weaned and very heavily weakened (democratic change, economic troubles resulting in collapse), been destroyed directly (violent revolution), etc.

Finally you bring up some legitimate points.

Here's the deal, when I say rich and powerful, it doesn't necessarily mean the same group of people in power right now.  It means WHATEVER group of rich and powerful end up emerging.

Case in point is... every revolution in history, ever, for all time, ever ever.

For recent history that we all know, how did the US start out?  People (just like you!) cried about high taxes (just like you do!) and they overthrew the current system (just like you want to!) and established their own system that they thought would be better (just like you want to!)... and here we are 200 years later with a group of elite as our masters again. 

This scenario plays itself out over and over, no matter what revolution you look at.  China is another great example.  The poor revolted against their rich dictators... and end up creating a tyranny of their own.  The French peasants revolved against the elite of their country... and we all know how happy, pretty, and full of freedom that turned out.


No matter WHAT system you put in the place, A group, maybe not the current one, but SOME group will work themselves into a system of power and end up ruling over everyone else - be it directly like a dictator or indirectly like a modern, manipulative democracy.  Your system does NOTHING to prevent or even delay this accumulation of power, in fact, for limitless reasons explained in numerous arguments all over this board, it actually facilitates and speeds up the process.

[LastBattle]

Finally you bring up some legitimate points.

It seems you aren't willing to acknowledge a point if there isn't any common ground in it.

Here's the deal, when I say rich and powerful, it doesn't necessarily mean the same group of people in power right now.  It means WHATEVER group of rich and powerful end up emerging.

Case in point is... every revolution in history, ever, for all time, ever ever.

The only revolutions in history that were expressly made for the purposes of stopping the "rich and powerful" would be the French and Russian revolutions (the German ones too, but they didn't succeed so we will never know how they would have changed things). The French revolution ended with no rich and powerful at all (barring maybe Napoleon himself, and he was only powerful because of the wars that France fought at the time), nor did the Russian one (there were arguably rich and powerful people, they just happened to be exclusively from the people in charge, though people in charge are almost always rich and powerful anyway).

At any rate, no revolution has ever aimed for the abolition of government (barring the Makhnoists and CNT-FAI, both of whom were stabbed in the back by the Communists).

For recent history that we all know, how did the US start out?  People (just like you!) cried about high taxes (just like you do!) and they overthrew the current system (just like you want to!) and established their own system that they thought would be better (just like you want to!)... and here we are 200 years later with a group of elite as our masters again. 

There was a LOT of change in between the beginning (revolution against the current system) and now (group of elite as masters). For quite a while things were very good and there was no "rich and powerful" elite class. This period peaked in the 1840s and possibly 1850s, where even the banking system was entirely free. Then Lincoln began helping Northern industrialists with high tariffs at the cost of Southerners who had more to gain from free trade, ultimately leading to the civil war and the system we have now.
Had the system be more decentralized (and I doubt you will find anything more decentralized than anarchy), the civil war would have never occurred due to a lack of federal power, resulting in the large corporations never getting the subsidies that characterized the 1870s and 1880s.

This scenario plays itself out over and over, no matter what revolution you look at.  China is another great example.  The poor revolted against their rich dictators... and end up creating a tyranny of their own.  The French peasants revolved against the elite of their country... and we all know how happy, pretty, and full of freedom that turned out.

Communist China under Mao was much, much worse than it is now. It is still very bad (corporatism isn't much better than communism), but it has at least improved. The French revolution's problems came mostly from its attempts at imperialism (under Napoleon) and the surrounding nations' attempts to destroy it.

Anyway, the problem both of them had can be traced to a centralized apparatus which was in control (in China it was the Communist party, in France it was Napoleon), which wouldn't exist in an anarchist society.

No matter WHAT system you put in the place, A group, maybe not the current one, but SOME group will work themselves into a system of power and end up ruling over everyone else - be it directly like a dictator or indirectly like a modern, manipulative democracy.  Your system does NOTHING to prevent or even delay this accumulation of power, in fact, for limitless reasons explained in numerous arguments all over this board, it actually facilitates and speeds up the process.

Anarchist Ukraine never had any of these problems. It was simply betrayed by the Communists who first used them as manpower to bleed the Whites and then stabbed them in the back while they were weakened. Likewise, the CNT-FAI ultimately failed because the idiotic Republicans used them as pawns against the Nationalists and then tried to stab them in the back before the Nationalists were defeated.

Anarchist revolutions have less of a problem with people within them becoming powerful and more of a problem with betrayal at the hands of rival groups.

[NghtRppr]

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

So, you're saying the people that are already in control will still be in control? What's the difference again?

[AyeYo]

Anarchist revolutions have less of a problem with people within them becoming powerful and more of a problem with betrayal at the hands of rival groups.

And thus the point stands.

[LastBattle]

Anarchist revolutions have less of a problem with people within them becoming powerful and more of a problem with betrayal at the hands of rival groups.

And thus the point stands.

... The Communists are going to stab us in the back? First, the Communists are about as far away from the "rich and powerful" as you can get, many of them falling into the "poor and pitiful" demographic, thus making your entire point moot. Second of all, that is a bit of a circumstantial problem which would not arise in every revolution. Third, an anarchist revolution is incapable of having someone grow powerful and set up a dictatorship for blatantly obvious reasons that it would appear you didn't pay any attention to.

[Fakeman]

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

There are about a million problems with this argument, so I will provide a couple samples (some of which may or may not apply, depending on HOW the ancap society came into existence):

-What money? The government issued monopoly money would be worthless, which could (in the case of, say, large banks) make them powerless.
-Many of the rich and powerful (who have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, as you so eloquently put it) are rich and powerful because of government contracts, government subsidies, government regulations which insulate them from competition, government provided monopolies, etc. Which would not exist in an anarchist world, obviously.
-If something caused the state to collapse in on itself, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would come out of the blue with the government-backed corporations intact. Depending on how the state came to fall, they could have been weaned and very heavily weakened (democratic change, economic troubles resulting in collapse), been destroyed directly (violent revolution), etc.

Having dealt with those specific rich and powerful, lets assume that this system has been in place for a long enough time that previously state backed enterprises are gone:

-How would they company hiring an army make its money initially, though? Imperialism is an expensive venture, highly risky, and the rate of return would only be high against a target that likely was very powerful in its own right (say, another large company with its own large security force, not to mention any volunteer militias and private defense agencies nearby).
-Assuming they succeeded, how would they keep up momentum? To return the initial investment for the invasion force, they would have to conquer very large amounts of land, which would piss off large amounts of people in a major way, not only the people occupied but also their relatives, people with knowledge of the invasion, etc. If they pissed off people in this way, ignoring large scale PDAs and militias for a second, they would be plagued by constant guerrilla activity, where a handful of guys with old guns would be on the same playing field as an army with high tech equipment (though Imperialist Co. would have to pay more for an army with high tech equipment, which would require more conquests to pay off the initial investment, which would leave them with even more enemies and with them right where they started), as Afghanistan and Iraq are demonstrating.
-Why would people continue to do business with them after they began the attacks? Once they were acting like criminals (or whatever you want to call them), the negative publicity would be a huge hit on their initial industry, regardless of what it is. The only industry that could conceivably make a profit from all of this would be a PDA, but they would (A) have plenty of competition out to wipe them out and (B) wouldn't have many honest customers after the attacks (would you hire a company for protection that ran the risk of suddenly turning around and seizing your property?).

A legitimate concern would be anarchist countries beside jealous countries with governments. A government, through taxation, monetary controls, etc would not want an alternative to them with a better deal right next door, so they would have a very good reason to throw everything at annexing the anarchists while they still held the advantage of manpower, etc. That would be an actual danger, though it would entirely depend on the circumstances and isn't any problem with the anarchist system itself, per se.

Also, what prevents a corporation from doing this now? I don't mean just anywhere; the US could never be conquered that way; but what about a small, relatively poor country? JP Morgan could probably hire a large enough army to take over, say, Honduras. The problem is that that sort of thing isn't profitable nor is it considered to be acceptable by most people. That would not change if the government was gone.

What about people/corporations who have large amounts of land already, and leverage that to acquire more over time by buying out the smaller players rather than by invasion? Couldn't a situation develop analagous to feudal Europe, where everyone not born into a select aristocratic class has virtually no chance of ever owning land? Libertarians seem to hate forcible redistribution of legitimately owned property which presumably rules out a peasant revolt, but on the other hand the feudal lord is more or less able to tax his subjects to his heart's content which also seems to be a libertarian no-no.