How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[deisik]

I would like to allow an arbitrary number of governments in my area, but this is illegal.  If anyone attempts it, they will face coercion (government force).  As someone else mentioned, this should be just as legal as picking a competing ISP.

That's what I mean by compelling people to just have one government.  If they try to start another, they will be forcibly put down as a "rebellion."  And 99% of the population seems to think that this is good and ethical.  But clearly this is the exact opposite of freedom.

Now I see your point. Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government (as you confirm yourself). Though it's still beyond my understanding how there could possibly be more than one government at the same time in the same area. If this is not what you actually mean here, aren't elections what would go for "picking a competing ISP"?

[deisik]

But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually?

It's not necessarily about dismantling the state.

The state, as it currently exists, provides certain services, principally protection.  All we are saying is that for all of those services, people should be able to either continue to use the state or use other services that people provide in the market and not have to pay the state.   That then allows people like yourself who want the state to continue to pay for it, and people like me who don't want the state to use other services instead. 

On the whole, I agree with your idea, something along these lines has likely already been taking place. But there are functions which simply can't be privatized or demonopolized, since duplicating some public institutions would be equal to creating another state inside or alongside the original one (that's what mafias are permanently trying to do). I think that would wreak havoc as it happens when organized crime is able to snatch some power from the state. In short, power demonopolized is no longer power, so what you say in essence amounts to abolishing the state...

[deisik]

Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts.  In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...

without moral standards you have no criteria by which to judge what is and is not effective. should a government protect people from harm? if so than arnt you making the claim that people shouldnt be harmed? if so than why shouldnt people be harmed?

Please could you give more cogent reasons why you think that without moral standards we can't assess the efficiency or performance of the state?

People shouldn't be harmed not because it is immoral to harm them (I talk on behalf of the state here), but because this could render state less efficient in terms of some objective metrics. In short, the powers that be are interested that the governed wouldn't be harmed. It just happens that these things coincide here (though not accidentally) and this coincidence is often used to say that at least some moral principles are not alien to state. This is false

[deisik]

Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts.  In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...

Okay, what metric shall we use for effectiveness?  I would say we should use freedom/liberty as our metric.  That again gives us anarchy, succeeding at 100%.

Actually, there are many objective metrics to measure the efficiency of the state existing nowadays for this very purpose. Economic growth as one of the most evident and encompassing example of such a metric. Also, how are you going to define freedom/liberty in more or less objective terms and would it be a moral issue then?

[deisik]

The selection of the metric that you're going to use to measure "effectiveness" is going to be, inherently, a moral issue.

I don't think so. And if, nevertheless, you are going to insist on this, please provide some convincing evidence for your assertion or give strong reasons why measuring the "effectiveness" should necessarily be a moral issue...

[crumbs]

I keep misreading the topic as "How long would it take for Anchovy to start working?"

[otsaku]

I keep misreading the topic as "How long would it take for Anchovy to start working?"

That's an easy one, the little blighters are lazy - they never work

[Walter Rothbard]

But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually?

It's not necessarily about dismantling the state.

The state, as it currently exists, provides certain services, principally protection.  All we are saying is that for all of those services, people should be able to either continue to use the state or use other services that people provide in the market and not have to pay the state.   That then allows people like yourself who want the state to continue to pay for it, and people like me who don't want the state to use other services instead.

Yes, exactly.  I fully support the people around me continuing to keep their existing government if they choose, so long as that institution stops compelling everybody in this territory to be its citizens/subjects.  They can keep their flag, national anthem, Congress, courts, Presidents, etc.  They can keep their schools.  They can even keep their wars.  What they can't do, morally, in my opinion, is force everybody to belong to their "jurisdiction" simply because they live here.  Other people within this region should be able to belong to other organizations with different courts, Presidents, etc., or even none at all and arranged differently (perhaps they want a king, as an example).

[Walter Rothbard]

I would like to allow an arbitrary number of governments in my area, but this is illegal.  If anyone attempts it, they will face coercion (government force).  As someone else mentioned, this should be just as legal as picking a competing ISP.

That's what I mean by compelling people to just have one government.  If they try to start another, they will be forcibly put down as a "rebellion."  And 99% of the population seems to think that this is good and ethical.  But clearly this is the exact opposite of freedom.

Now I see your point. Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government (as you confirm yourself). Though it's still beyond my understanding how there could possibly be more than one government at the same time in the same area.

All they have to do is just respect each other's rights to life, liberty, and property.  Imagine if the Republican and Democratic parties were each governments.  Each citizen picks whichever one they want.  If you commit a crime against another citizen of your party, your party handles it in the way they deem appropriate.  If they commit a crime against a citizen of the other party, it'd be handled by collaboration between governments: extradition, etc.  So, if you are Republican and murder a Democrat and the whole world witnessed it on television, the Republicans probably hand you over to the Democrats to face justice.  But if you are Democrat and have an abortion, the Democrats don't hand you over to the Republicans, because while the Republicans have outlawed abortion, the Democrats have not.

Now generalize it: instead of two parties/governments, allow any arbitrary number of them.  Allow people to create new ones as they see fit.

If this is not what you actually mean here, aren't elections what would go for "picking a competing ISP"?

No, in elections (as we know them), you are picking the government that other people will be subject to.  What we want is for each person to be allowed to pick their own government.  Example: when George W. Bush won in 2000, it was immoral to force everybody to be subject to his government; people should've been allowed to be under a competing system run by Gore instead, if that's what they really wanted.  (Personally I'd pick neither.)

[Walter Rothbard]

But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually?

It's not necessarily about dismantling the state.

The state, as it currently exists, provides certain services, principally protection.  All we are saying is that for all of those services, people should be able to either continue to use the state or use other services that people provide in the market and not have to pay the state.   That then allows people like yourself who want the state to continue to pay for it, and people like me who don't want the state to use other services instead. 

On the whole, I agree with your idea, something along these lines has likely already been taking place. But there are functions which simply can't be privatized or demonopolized, since duplicating some public institutions would be equal to creating another state inside or alongside the original one (that's what mafias are permanently trying to do). I think that would wreak havoc as it happens when organized crime is able to snatch some power from the state. In short, power demonopolized is no longer power, so what you say in essence amounts to abolishing the state...

Part of the whole point here is that power, as we know it, is wrong!

You should have the power to defend your rights to life, liberty, and property.

You shouldn't have the power to compel people to go along with your ideas.  So, for example, you think everybody should abstain from alcohol.  Great - persuade people instead of outlawing it, because nobody should have the power to outlaw it.  It shouldn't be a matter of voting on who gets that power over everybody, because nobody should have it.

It's no good merely taking turns at tyranny.  Tyranny has to be eliminated.

[Walter Rothbard]

Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts.  In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...

Okay, what metric shall we use for effectiveness?  I would say we should use freedom/liberty as our metric.  That again gives us anarchy, succeeding at 100%.

Actually, there are many objective metrics to measure the efficiency of the state existing nowadays for this very purpose. Economic growth as one of the most evident and encompassing example of such a metric. Also, how are you going to define freedom/liberty in more or less objective terms and would it be a moral issue then?

The problem is this: if you decide to use economic growth as a metric, then you are setting up economic growth as being valued more highly than other factors.  Say some people would want equality over economic growth.  Either way, this is a moral decision.

The basic principle is this: the ends (your metrics) don't justify the means.  So some system might result in more economic growth, but that doesn't mean it's right to force it on people - maybe they value something else more highly than that economic growth.  Or some system might result in better equality, but it would be wrong to force it on you or others who believe economic growth should be paramount (just an example).  Or maybe reducing traffic deaths is the number one goal, or childhood obesity.

When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

[deisik]

All they have to do is just respect each other's rights to life, liberty, and property.  Imagine if the Republican and Democratic parties were each governments.  Each citizen picks whichever one they want.  If you commit a crime against another citizen of your party, your party handles it in the way they deem appropriate.  If they commit a crime against a citizen of the other party, it'd be handled by collaboration between governments: extradition, etc.  So, if you are Republican and murder a Democrat and the whole world witnessed it on television, the Republicans probably hand you over to the Democrats to face justice.  But if you are Democrat and have an abortion, the Democrats don't hand you over to the Republicans, because while the Republicans have outlawed abortion, the Democrats have not.

Now generalize it: instead of two parties/governments, allow any arbitrary number of them.  Allow people to create new ones as they see fit.

How is that different from what we have right now on an international level with the difference being only that your parties/governments (i.e. states) are distributed across the globe? But in today's world, where you can fly from any inhabited area to any other within several hours, even this limitation is actually losing its significance...

[deisik]

If this is not what you actually mean here, aren't elections what would go for "picking a competing ISP"?

No, in elections (as we know them), you are picking the government that other people will be subject to.  What we want is for each person to be allowed to pick their own government.  Example: when George W. Bush won in 2000, it was immoral to force everybody to be subject to his government; people should've been allowed to be under a competing system run by Gore instead, if that's what they really wanted.  (Personally I'd pick neither.)

As I said above, the system you promote is already here. Though it may look very different from what you likely dream about, but the staples are present there. And even if you prefer to remain neutral you can secede and fly to Antarctica which has no government and is considered politically neutral...

[deisik]

You shouldn't have the power to compel people to go along with your ideas.  So, for example, you think everybody should abstain from alcohol.  Great - persuade people instead of outlawing it, because nobody should have the power to outlaw it.  It shouldn't be a matter of voting on who gets that power over everybody, because nobody should have it.

Otto von Bismarck once said that "Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen", which can be translated as "politics is the science of achieving the possible". It may be better to persuade people to abstain from alcohol instead of just outlawing it (in fact, I have no doubts that what you say is true), but it would require so many resources (human, financial or whatever) that it would actually be more damaging in other parts than useful in just one. So outright outlawing alcohol may actually turn out to be the best option available, taking into account all possible consequences and effects...

[deisik]

Actually, there are many objective metrics to measure the efficiency of the state existing nowadays for this very purpose. Economic growth as one of the most evident and encompassing example of such a metric. Also, how are you going to define freedom/liberty in more or less objective terms and would it be a moral issue then?

The problem is this: if you decide to use economic growth as a metric, then you are setting up economic growth as being valued more highly than other factors.  Say some people would want equality over economic growth.  Either way, this is a moral decision.

The basic principle is this: the ends (your metrics) don't justify the means.  So some system might result in more economic growth, but that doesn't mean it's right to force it on people - maybe they value something else more highly than that economic growth.  Or some system might result in better equality, but it would be wrong to force it on you or others who believe economic growth should be paramount (just an example).  Or maybe reducing traffic deaths is the number one goal, or childhood obesity.

Your appeal only makes sense when it is directed to a human being for whom there exists a moral scale (i.e. by which he can tell that some decisions are more moral than others). But it would not be my decision to set up economic growth before equality. State would be interested in equality as long as it has some influence on economic growth if it decides to prioritize that metric...

You just can't draw out a morally justified decision from an entity which doesn't have morality inherent to it

[deisik]

When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

[Walter Rothbard]

When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property.  So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

[Walter Rothbard]

If this is not what you actually mean here, aren't elections what would go for "picking a competing ISP"?

No, in elections (as we know them), you are picking the government that other people will be subject to.  What we want is for each person to be allowed to pick their own government.  Example: when George W. Bush won in 2000, it was immoral to force everybody to be subject to his government; people should've been allowed to be under a competing system run by Gore instead, if that's what they really wanted.  (Personally I'd pick neither.)

As I said above, the system you promote is already here. Though it may look very different from what you likely dream about, but the staples are present there. And even if you prefer to remain neutral you can secede and fly to Antarctica which has no government and is considered politically neutral...

I and all my fellow subjects should be able to secede without having to leave.

[Hawker]

When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property.  So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people?  For example I am opposed to animal cruelty.  Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted?  What gives you the right to dictate that?

[Mike Christ]

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people?  For example I am opposed to animal cruelty.  Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted?  What gives you the right to dictate that?

If a homophobe claims gays should not marry, but the gays say "We should be able to marry, to tell us we can't marry is immoral", are the gays now imposing their morality on the homophobe?

Anyway to answer your question: you begin by claiming the other person has no morality.  You then assert your own morality as the only morality in existence.  You can then easily dictate what is and is not moral.