How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[Hawker]

I'm intrigued.

Good!

First, female genital mutilation is done by mothers to daughters.  Are you seriously saying you are going to break into Muslim homes and inspect vaginas? And based on what you find start "mutilating bastards?"

Personally, no - I'm actually a pacifist. I would break into Muslim homes and try talking to them reasonably, haha. Anyway, what is your alternative? Let government agents break into Muslim homes and inspect vaginas? Like I said before: if you don't like something in your environment or culture, you - yes YOU - that tiny, powerless, inconsequential existence, which needs to be protected and guided by authority (or so they say) are responsible for doing that. If you delegate this responsibility to some sort of higher power (God, government, etc) you have no business making moral judgements about - that's how I see it.

Second, what is the basis for your "trust people?" You think fgm and bride burning are carried out by robots?  These are done by people.

It's my choice to trust people. I find it makes for a more friendly, exciting and optimistic reality-tunnel than choosing to view people as crooked. Both are valid views, though and I'm not sure it's possible to definitely prove one or the other, so I'll just make my choice and take it with all that it brings. But notice, my position has consistent logic. I trust people to be generally good (with the limiting factor here being their cultural environment, which might turn any of us into sociopaths) and thus they don't need to be ruled over by an authority by force.

Your stance on the other hand, seems to be that people are NOT to be trusted by default and that is why they need to be ruled by force. By other people. Who are also not to be trusted.

Do you see the flaw in that?

If you are really convinced that people are crooked by nature, you should be supporting anarchy as this limits the amount of damage they can do collectively thanks to withholding the possibility of acquiring huge centralized power.

I think what you are doing is ignoring human reality in pursuit of a dream species.  People are not trustworthy by default.

Right now its a legal requirement for schools and doctors to report female genital mutilation or signs of it like girls being prevented from having sports lessons or medical examinations.  So the government does inspect vaginas and it does prosecute anyone who does it.  Quite rightly too.  

The anarchist position does not make sense.  If you believe it is immoral to cut a girl's clitoris off, then wittering on about "Her dad has his own protection force and they are OK with it" is bullshit.  Either you enforce the moral standard or you support the damage done to the victim.

[ErisDiscordia]

In short, you'd better stop nitpicking  

I'm enjoying this discussion, I don't mean to insult or offend you, hope that is clear

I think it is evident from my post that adaptability is not something specific to humans only but inherent in all living beings. It is not a trait of human nature which distinguishes it from other creatures, that's all

Now I get what you're saying. Yes, I agree that if we consider "human nature" to be something which sets humans apart from other living beings, then adaptability is not it.
Neither is forming social hierarchies, though - you can observe that sort of behavior in primates, packs of wolves, elephants.

Ok, there's no ruler, no universal laws anymore, and so why do you think there will be a new shiny set of rules everyone on the block agrees upon? People are different and even between two people you will get a disagreeing minority...

I don't see this as a dualism. Like "universal set of rules means everything sucks" and "no universal set of rules means everything is great". What I am saying is that if you have lots of options to choose from, you're more likely to find one you like and agree with, compared to a situation where you have only one set of rules forced upon you.

To be honest I don't come at this from a moral "what is right" perspective at all. Instead I tend to look at it from a pragmatic, process-oriented perspective. What is most likely to yield positive results? (yes, positive results is a moral value-judgement as well)

EDIT: response to hawker

I think what you are doing is ignoring human reality in pursuit of a dream species.  People are not trustworthy by default.

But that's like, you know, just your opinion, man. 

Seriously, I won't try to persuade you that the statement of "people are not trustworthy by default" might not be true, you seem to have made up your mind about that and that's OK.

I might try to persuade you to think about the possibility that even if that statement is true, the implications of it are still better served in anarchy than in the present situation.

If you believe it is immoral to cut a girl's clitoris off, then wittering on about "Her dad has his own protection force and they are OK with it" is bullshit.  Either you enforce the moral standard or you support the damage done to the victim.

I sympathize with your conviction in moral ideals. But you see there is a problem with this approach, don't you? Who gets to decide which moral standard to enforce? It's quite easy for most people to agree on an issue like genital mutilation (but still it exists...), yet other issues are less clear. And don't forget: people are NOT trustworthy. How can we trust them to set and enforce the right moral standards, then? Seems to me, they'd be enforcing crooked standards - which seems to be going on today. I'd just argue that it's mostly because the system (environment) has corrupted the individuals occupying its seats of power, not because the people in the system are inherently crooked.

I realize I probably won't convince you of anything, there's no need to. I'm just typing out my thoughts. Maybe someone will enjoy them.

[deisik]

There is no universal law now.   Where is the world ruler and his/their laws that we all have to follow?

We currently have competing law providers that we are "contracted" to.  I use contract loosely of course, because there is no such thing.

Why should a law provider be bound to a certain patch of land and no other law providers be able to operate in the same territory?  If we had competition we could make actually choices about what we deem to be good laws and if we don't think our provider is doing a good job, we can end the contract and pick another law provider, without having to go through the hassle of emigration.

I don't understand where you're going... 

According to your own logic there should be no "law providers", otherwise at the end of the day you will get where you started at, i.e. you will have a new ruler and a new set of rules...

[Hawker]

...snip...

To be honest I don't come at this from a moral "what is right" perspective at all. Instead I tend to look at it from a pragmatic, process-oriented perspective. What is most likely to yield positive results? (yes, positive results is a moral value-judgement as well)

Surely that is the problem with the whole concept of anarcky "working?"  It forces your lack of morality on people who disagree with you.  And you have no right to do that do you?  Mike Christ's position on female genital mutilation is that its fine provided its not done to his daughter.  My position is that its an abomination.  I see no reason to allow Mike's or anyone else's sunny indifference to human suffering to be the limit of what laws we make and enforce.

[hawkeye]

I would say language sets us apart from the animals.  Animals have no ability to communicate with each other in any meaningful way and so must act mostly on instinct to survive.

This is completely untrue with humans, where we discuss things, we arbitrate between people with disagreements, we make rules, etc.  We are not in the same state of nature that other animals are in and it is incorrect for people to say, "oh, this is human nature".  It's not.  Most people have no interest in dominating others so how can it be human nature?  It's like saying killing is human nature because some humans like to kill others.  Or raping is human nature because some people like to rape.  etc

[hawkeye]

There is no universal law now.   Where is the world ruler and his/their laws that we all have to follow?

We currently have competing law providers that we are "contracted" to.  I use contract loosely of course, because there is no such thing.

Why should a law provider be bound to a certain patch of land and no other law providers be able to operate in the same territory?  If we had competition we could make actually choices about what we deem to be good laws and if we don't think our provider is doing a good job, we can end the contract and pick another law provider, without having to go through the hassle of emigration.

I don't understand where you're going...  
According to your logic there should be no "law providers", otherwise at the end of the day you will get where you started at, i.e. you will have a new ruler and a new set of rules...

I said there is no universal law.  Already we have competing law providers (called governments) that are tied to particular areas of land.    

You will have competing law providers in the same area of land.  There is a high demand for security and law and order and many entrepreneurs will be willing to provide it.  The reason they don't now, is because the government has a monopoly and forbids it.  It does this because it's good to have a monopoly on the provision of force in a geographical area.  Allows you to extort your victims.   It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else.  The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.

[deisik]

You will have competing law providers in the same area of land.  There is a high demand for security and law and order and many entrepreneurs will be willing to provide it.  The reason they don't now, is because the government has a monopoly and forbids it.  It does this because it's good to have a monopoly on the provision of force in a geographical area.  Allows you to extort your victims.   It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else.  The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.

I still don't see much logic behind what you say. Ultimately it doesn't change anything from where you start and instead of one "law provider" you get by the choice of majority another with brand new laws and some part of the population disagreeing with them...

What does this all have to do with anarchy?

[deisik]

Ok, there's no ruler, no universal laws anymore, and so why do you think there will be a new shiny set of rules everyone on the block agrees upon? People are different and even between two people you will get a disagreeing minority...

I don't see this as a dualism. Like "universal set of rules means everything sucks" and "no universal set of rules means everything is great". What I am saying is that if you have lots of options to choose from, you're more likely to find one you like and agree with, compared to a situation where you have only one set of rules forced upon you.

There are options which cannot be given on an individual basis, so whatever you try (and say about it), there will all always majorities and minorities. You just can't make all people happy, some will always envy other...

[bitlancr]

 It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else.  The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.

Sounds a lot like what's happening to western governments right now.

P.S.
So most likley it will happen then.

[deisik]

Neither is forming social hierarchies, though - you can observe that sort of behavior in primates, packs of wolves, elephants.

I never said anything to the contrary. Actually, it was my argument against anarchy in another debate about it. In any hierarchical structure there are always those who subdue and those who are subdued. And no trace of anarchy, right?

[hawkeye]

 

I still don't see much logic behind what you say. Ultimately it doesn't change anything from where you start and instead of one "law provider" you get by choice of majority another with brand new laws and some part of the population disagreeing with them...

No, it means I look out into the marketplace and I see law and security provider 1, law and security provider 2, etc.  Just like I see ISP 1, ISP 2, etc.  I then look at the deals that they offer and then how much it costs and make my choice based on that.  

The difference, of course, between free market providers of law would be that they would not be my rulers, just as ISP companies don't rule me.  They are trying to get my custom with the best possible deal they can offer me.  I get to choose.

Can you imagine what it would be like if there was only one ISP in the entire country?  Do you think they would offer a good deal?

What does this all have to do with anarchy?

Are you sure that you know what anarchy is?  It doesn't mean chaos.

[deisik]

I would say language sets us apart from the animals.  Animals have no ability to communicate with each other in any meaningful way and so must act mostly on instinct to survive.

As with animals killing only for food, this premise is also false. The neocortex of dolphins and killer whales (which are, strictly speaking, also dolphins) is more developed than that of a human. Actually, they do communicate in a meaningful way with each other and show patterns of cooperative behaviour which are simply impossible on instinct

[hawkeye]

 It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else.  The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.

Sounds a lot like what's happening to western governments right now.

Right.  They tax, borrow money, and print like crazy and they still struggle so I don't know how a private company could manage to do it.

I would say language sets us apart from the animals.  Animals have no ability to communicate with each other in any meaningful way and so must act mostly on instinct to survive.

As with animals killing only for food, this premise is also false. The neocortex of dolphins and killer whales (which are, strictly speaking, also dolphins) is more developed than that of a human. Actually, they do communicate in a meaningful way with each other and show patterns of cooperative behaviour which are simply impossible on instinct

Seriously?  Where are their advanced societies?   Do they have underwater cities?

[deisik]

No, it means I look out into the marketplace and I see law and security provider 1, law and security provider 2, etc.  Just like I see ISP 1, ISP 2, etc.  I then look at the deals that they offer and then how much it costs and make my choice based on that. 

The difference, of course, between free market providers of law would be that they would not be my rulers, just as ISP companies don't rule me.  They are trying to get my custom with the best possible deal they can offer me.  I get to choose.

As I can see, you're desperately trying to get away with what makes your idea look not so bright as you would like. You forget to mention that there are other guys picking up in the marketplace and if my choice doesn't match theirs, I will have to resign myself to their choice, right?

[deisik]

Are you sure that you know what anarchy is?  It doesn't mean chaos.

I have already answered a question like this one. What you refer to as "anarchy" is correctly called a constitutional state...

[deisik]

As with animals killing only for food, this premise is also false. The neocortex of dolphins and killer whales (which are, strictly speaking, also dolphins) is more developed than that of a human. Actually, they do communicate in a meaningful way with each other and show patterns of cooperative behaviour which are simply impossible on instinct

Seriously?  Where are their advanced societies?   Do they have underwater cities?

Orcas live in family groups which are considered the most stable of any animal species (and actually more stable than human families), where knowledge (hunting techniques, vocal behaviors) is specific for the family and passed across generations. They are nomads and like nomadic people they don't need cities...

By the way, ants and termites do have "cities"

[hawkeye]

As I can see you're desperately trying to get away with what makes your idea look not so bright as you would like. You forget to mention that there are other guys picking up in the marketplace and if my choice doesn't match theirs, I will have to resign myself to their choice, right?

Like you have to pick the same ISP as everyone else?

Are you sure that you know what anarchy is?  It doesn't mean chaos.

I have already answered a question like this one. What you refer to as "anarchy" is correctly called a constitutional state...

No.  No government.  Constitutional state requires a government as far as I know.  Who else is going to enforce the constitution?

[Hawker]

...snip...

If you believe it is immoral to cut a girl's clitoris off, then wittering on about "Her dad has his own protection force and they are OK with it" is bullshit.  Either you enforce the moral standard or you support the damage done to the victim.

I sympathize with your conviction in moral ideals. But you see there is a problem with this approach, don't you? Who gets to decide which moral standard to enforce? It's quite easy for most people to agree on an issue like genital mutilation (but still it exists...), yet other issues are less clear. And don't forget: people are NOT trustworthy. How can we trust them to set and enforce the right moral standards, then? Seems to me, they'd be enforcing crooked standards - which seems to be going on today. I'd just argue that it's mostly because the system (environment) has corrupted the individuals occupying its seats of power, not because the people in the system are inherently crooked.

I realize I probably won't convince you of anything, there's no need to. I'm just typing out my thoughts. Maybe someone will enjoy them.

I am perfectly OK with the idea of an elected parliament deciding which moral standard to enforce.  Its complicated choosing who to elect to make laws but the idea that you have to allow female genital mutilation because choosing law makers is complicated is absurd.

In case you are wondering, I do enjoy your thoughts.  I very much doubt you believe its OK to allow female genital mutilation, bride burning or honour killings even in mainly Muslim areas where the private "protection force" would never intrude on a Muslim home.

[deisik]

As I can see you're desperately trying to get away with what makes your idea look not so bright as you would like. You forget to mention that there are other guys picking up in the marketplace and if my choice doesn't match theirs, I will have to resign myself to their choice, right?

Like you have to pick the same ISP as everyone else?

Ultimately it makes no difference, it's all six of one and half a dozen of the other...

And it may turn out that I don't want to pick any... Should I be deported, disenfranchised, euthanized or what?

[deisik]

Who else is going to enforce the constitution?

Who ever is going to enforce the laws in a stateless anarchic society if there is no universal consensus about what's right and what's wrong?