How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[Walter Rothbard]

Society can't even get along with Laws, it would be worse without them.

Anarchists don't advocate living without laws.

[ErisDiscordia]

Anarchy would never ever ever work.  Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.   

LoL. Human nature. You know what human nature is? It is ADAPTABILITY. We can be anarchic or authoritarian and all sorts of things in between. But don't you ever think this can never change, or is somehow programmed into us before we are born. We respond to environmental conditions and develop accordingly.

[Hawker]

Animals don't kill each other for fun, they kill each other for food.

Humans kill each other for fun and for materialistic gain, for the destruction of our home.  Having an elite group of sociopaths is a man made system.

Society can't even get along with Laws, it would be worse without them.

We would still have the law of nature, the law of attraction, karma, what ever you would like to call it.  Do you really need the government to tell you not to kill people or can you fathom that piece of moral code by yourself?

Yes - you do really need the law and the police to stop people being killed and robbed.  Couple of years ago in London there was a riot and the Police let it be known that they would only be protecting life - not property.  Within 6 hours, people were being burnt out of their homes, there was widespread looting and people were beaten to death in the streets within 48 hours.

That's the law of nature.  Our legal systems are a collective effort to have something better.

[hawkeye]

Yes - you do really need the law and the police to stop people being killed and robbed.  Couple of years ago in London there was a riot and the Police let it be known that they would only be protecting life - not property.  Within 6 hours, people were being burnt out of their homes, there was widespread looting and people were beaten to death in the streets within 48 hours.

That's the law of nature.  Our legal systems are a collective effort to have something better.

If you had a company in the marketplace providing protection, and they said they weren't going to fulfil their contractual obligations to protect property, do you know what would happen?  They would lose customers and go out of business.  Pity that the Police have no such obligations toward us and can pick and choose what and who they want to protect, isn't it?   It isn't for nothing that people say you have to be either rich or important to get justice in our society.  They are the only people the Police really care about because they are the ones who can kick up a stink through using either their money or friends in high places.  The rest of us?  we pay whether we like it or not.  Whether we get good service or not.

So when you see police out in force to protect the politicians, it's not such a surprise when you realise that they are the police's true customers.  The ones who pay their salaries.  They mostly don't care about the rest of us.

[Hawker]

Yes - you do really need the law and the police to stop people being killed and robbed.  Couple of years ago in London there was a riot and the Police let it be known that they would only be protecting life - not property.  Within 6 hours, people were being burnt out of their homes, there was widespread looting and people were beaten to death in the streets within 48 hours.

That's the law of nature.  Our legal systems are a collective effort to have something better.

If you had a company in the marketplace providing protection, and they said they weren't going to fulfil their contractual obligations to protect property, do you know what would happen?  They would lose customers and go out of business.  Pity that the Police have no such obligations toward us and can pick and choose what and who they want to protect, isn't it?   It isn't for nothing that people say you have to be either rich or important to get justice in our society.  They are the only people the Police really care about because they are the ones who can kick up a stink through using either their money or friends in high places.  The rest of us?  we pay whether we like it or not.  Whether we get good service or not.

So when you see police out in force to protect the politicians, it's not such a surprise when you realise that they are the police's true customers.  The ones who pay their salaries.  They mostly don't care about the rest of us.

The important thing here is that we agree a police force is needed.  Your debate is as to the best way to provide it.  I've gone though this with myrkul last year and not really sure whats to be gained by going through it again but here goes. 

I live in Berkshire in a mixed Muslim/other area.  A large part of the Muslim community believes that alcohol should be illegal and that female circumcision should be legal.  A large part of the "other" group believes that alcohol should be legal under certain circumstances and that female genital mutilation should be illegal.  I don't like the idea of free competing companies being able to go to the Muslim community and "protect" men who burn alcohol shops and "protect" women that cut their daughter's clitoris off.  I can accept that they have these views.  I accept that they are the majority in this area.  But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.

[Mike Christ]

But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.

No, too inefficient.  How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon?  That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far.

[Hawker]

But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.

No, too inefficient.  How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon?  That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far.

You have no morality.

Female genital mutilation is an abomination.  The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me. 

[Mike Christ]

But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.

No, too inefficient.  How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon?  That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far.

You have no morality.

Female genital mutilation is an abomination.  The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me. 

You're making an assumption; I don't like it either, but morality is subjective, friend.  You have no right to force your morals on another.

[Hawker]

But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.

No, too inefficient.  How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon?  That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far.

You have no morality.

Female genital mutilation is an abomination.  The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me.  

You're making an assumption; I don't like it either, but morality is subjective, friend.  You have no right to force your morals on another.

I do.  So do you.  There are certain things like murder, slavery and child abuse that cannot be resolved within families as generally people are killed by spouses, are forced into unpaid labour by family members and most child abuse is done within the family.  You either say you are OK with wife killing, forced labour and child abuse or you say you have the right to enforce your morality on immoral people.

[Mike Christ]

But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.

No, too inefficient.  How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon?  That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far.

You have no morality.

Female genital mutilation is an abomination.  The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me. 

You're making an assumption; I don't like it either, but morality is subjective, friend.  You have no right to force your morals on another.

I do.  So do you.

Bzzt, wrong.  You don't know how this "rights" thing works, do you?

[Hawker]

But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.

No, too inefficient.  How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon?  That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far.

You have no morality.

Female genital mutilation is an abomination.  The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me.  

You're making an assumption; I don't like it either, but morality is subjective, friend.  You have no right to force your morals on another.

I do.  So do you.

Bzzt, wrong.  You don't know how this "rights" thing works, do you?

Mike if you are editting my replies, the done thing is to write "...snip..." where you cut.

For the record, since its something you avoided answering, here is what you deleted. 

There are certain things like murder, slavery and child abuse that cannot be resolved within families as generally people are killed by spouses, are forced into unpaid labour by family members and most child abuse is done within the family.  You either say you are OK with wife killing, forced labour and child abuse or you say you have the right to enforce your morality on immoral people.

Is the price of anarchy is that we have to allow female genital mutilation?

[Mike Christ]

But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.

No, too inefficient.  How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon?  That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far.

You have no morality.

Female genital mutilation is an abomination.  The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me. 

You're making an assumption; I don't like it either, but morality is subjective, friend.  You have no right to force your morals on another.

I do.  So do you.

Bzzt, wrong.  You don't know how this "rights" thing works, do you?

Mike if you are editting my replies, the done thing is to write "...snip..." where you cut.

Is the price of anarchy is that we have to allow female genital mutilation?

Of course not; the reason why I cut off the rest of your reply is because the first two sentences is where you made an error.

Here's how rights work: you say, "I want the right to enforce my beliefs on you; I will extend this right to you if you extend this right to me."  Then I will either say, "Okay, this sounds reasonable, you can enforce your beliefs on me if you let me enforce my beliefs on you", or I will say, "No, sorry, I'd rather you didn't enforce your beliefs on me, therefore I will not enforce my beliefs on you."

Now, when you say, "I have the right to force my morals on another.  You also have this right," you've assumed a position of authority in which I have no say in whether or not you or I have this right.  This is not how a right works; you don't simply get to decide what rights everyone will have.

About female genital mutilation: you've assumed that you have the right to allow or disallow this.  People are perfectly capable of making these decisions; the point isn't to force people not to with the threat of violence, the point is to enlighten people with knowledge so they can make the right decision.  This is the difference between you, the authoritarian, and me, the libertarian.  I'm sorry, but I don't like your system at all; it does not encourage intelligence or liberty, it only encourages fear and obedience.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Of course not; the reason why I cut off the rest of your reply is because the first two sentences is where you made an error.

Here's how rights work: you say, "I want the right to enforce my beliefs on you; I will extend this right to you if you extend this right to me."  Then I will either say, "Okay, this sounds reasonable, you can enforce your beliefs on me if you let me enforce my beliefs on you", or I will say, "No, sorry, I'd rather you didn't enforce your beliefs on me, therefore I will not enforce my beliefs on you."

Now, when you say, "I have the right to force my morals on another.  You also have this right," you've assumed a position of authority in which I have no say in whether or not you or I have this right.  This is not how a right works; you don't simply get to decide what rights everyone will have.

About female genital mutilation: you've assumed that you have the right to allow or disallow this.  People are perfectly capable of making these decisions; the point isn't to force people not to with the threat of violence, the point is to enlighten people with knowledge so they can make the right decision.  This is the difference between you, the authoritarian, and me, the libertarian.  I'm sorry, but I don't like your system at all; it does not encourage intelligence or liberty, it only encourages fear and obedience.

So you will allow female genital mutilation.  I assume the same logic applies to honour killings, bride burning and the like.

If that is what anarchy requires, then I don't see it ever "working."  

[Mike Christ]

So you will allow female genital mutilation.  I assume the same logic applies to honour killings, bride burning and the like.

If that is what anarchy requires, then I don't see it ever "working."  

False.  I will not allow my child to have her genitals mutilated.  That's the point; it requires a rational society, of which you'd find no place if you will not even acknowledge when you're wrong.

[Hawker]

So you will allow female genital mutilation.  I assume the same logic applies to honour killings, bride burning and the like.

If that is what anarchy requires, then I don't see it ever "working."  

False.  I will not allow my child to have her genitals mutilated.  That's the point; it requires a rational society, of which you'd find no place if you will not even acknowledge when you're wrong.

As I said, you have no morality.  You don't want your child hurt but you turn a blind eye to a neighbour's child having her clitoris cut off without anaesthetic.  Disgusting.

[Mike Christ]

So you will allow female genital mutilation.  I assume the same logic applies to honour killings, bride burning and the like.

If that is what anarchy requires, then I don't see it ever "working."  

False.  I will not allow my child to have her genitals mutilated.  That's the point; it requires a rational society, of which you'd find no place if you will not even acknowledge when you're wrong.

As I said, you have no morality.  You don't want your child hurt but you turn a blind eye to a neighbour's child having her clitoris cut off without anaesthetic.  Disgusting.

False.  You have no idea what morality is, either, if you believe people can be with or without them.  Hawker, take my advice: take a class on philosophy, specifically on ethics.  It'll help.

Take care

[RodeoX]

As a military trainer I got to live in an anarchy or two. No one there liked it. Violence, poverty, fear. You know, utopia.

[Hawker]

So you will allow female genital mutilation.  I assume the same logic applies to honour killings, bride burning and the like.

If that is what anarchy requires, then I don't see it ever "working."  

False.  I will not allow my child to have her genitals mutilated.  That's the point; it requires a rational society, of which you'd find no place if you will not even acknowledge when you're wrong.

As I said, you have no morality.  You don't want your child hurt but you turn a blind eye to a neighbour's child having her clitoris cut off without anaesthetic.  Disgusting.

False.  You have no idea what morality is, either, if you believe people can be with or without them.  Hawker, take my advice: take a class on philosophy, specifically on ethics.  It'll help.

Take care

Wait - you are happy to allow female genital mutilation, provided its not done to your daughter, and now you want to go all happy-clappy about believing in people?

If this is how your vision of anarchy "works" you'll find that people won't allow it.  As I say, disgusting.

[ErisDiscordia]

So you will allow female genital mutilation.  I assume the same logic applies to honour killings, bride burning and the like.

Personally I wouldn't. I would go out there and mutilate the shit out of these bastards and take full responsibility for what I have done.  

What would you do? Go tell the government? Because it's their job?

That kind of stuff is YOUR responsibility if you think it's wrong. From treating your environment like it's the business of somebody else to keep it nice for you, it's just a small leap to treating your own life like that.

Of course you can't tolerate the idea of anarchy if the first things that pop into your mind when you hear "anarchy" are genital mutilation and blood-feuds.

Don't you trust people? And if not, why do you trust them to run a government? If people are not to be trusted, they should be kept from great power, not given it.

[Biomech]

I thought about this question when it comes to Anarchy.

How long would it take for majority to adapt to anarchy, that is start to follow rational non-aggresive principles. And majority of the destructive forces to be forced out of market by consumer choise?

That is if we were to start now?

Your post perpetuates a common misunderstanding of anarchic philosophy. Anarchy is NOT a system, it's a rejection of centralization, with all that implies.

Anarchy works, every day, everywhere, right now. You did not ask my permission to post this thread, nor did I seek yours to reply to it. In all of your interactions with people (aside from those who have given up their individuality to become drones... err, public officials) you are acting on your own authority and mostly respecting their right to do the same. Anarchy is the NATURAL STATE of human interaction.