How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[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...

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.

You say that state is evil and should be liquidated, you probably think that this would be moral and justified. If state hurts you somehow (even through taxes which you deem excessive or not justified at all) or somebody else for that matter, you would obviously pretend that this is immoral... How come?

Actually, I'm not justifying anything just as I don't try to justify predator hunting some prey. It simply doesn't make sense (beast cannot be held guilty in the first place)

[Hawker]

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.

Correct.  That's how civilization works.  A minority agitates for a moral cause; they convince enough people to have the law changed and society advances.  For example, that's why we don't have slaves.  In a free market slavery would still exist.

Its also how we reduced things like female genital mutilation and animal cruelty. 

So yes - I am all for imposing morality. 

[User_513]

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?

Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you?

[User_513]

So yes - I am all for imposing morality.

Well that says it all. You're one of those people who feel entitled to impose your will upon and take what you'd wish from others by force.

[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?

Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you?

I am opposed to animal cruelty.  I don't care who owns the beast being mistreated and I don't care that no humans are harmed - I want the abusers arrested and prosecuted.   

Under these circumstances, telling me that I should "keep your hands off of that which isn't yours" is imposing your morality on me. 

[ErisDiscordia]

Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area 

[Ekaros]

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?

Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you?

Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it.

[deisik]

Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area 

What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?

[hawkeye]

Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area  

What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?

It's not about having a few governments.  It's saying people like you can have rulers if that's what you want.

The rest of us say that we want competing service providers to provide those services that the government currently claims a monopoly over, because we don't want rulers.

I probably wasn't clear in my posts, but that boiled down is what I mean.

You can pay for these people and all their cronyism and overseas trips and bailing out their friends etc etc since you are eager to have rulers.  And that's fine.  Me?   I'll pass.

You can choose to be a slave if you wish in a free society.

[crumbs]

...
You can pay for these people and all their cronyism and overseas trips and bailing out their friends etc etc since you are eager to have rulers.  And that's fine.  Me?   I'll pass.

Well no, you won't.
Cronyism, overseas trips, bailouts -- this stuff is replicated as soon as it's torn down.
Case in point:  Ukyo, of WeExchange fame, is flown to Cyprus and bailed out by his crony Danny, the CEO of Neo & Bee.
One sentence covers all the events you dislike so much.

[deisik]

What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?

It's not about having a few governments.  It's saying people like you can have rulers if that's what you want.

The rest of us say that we want competing service providers to provide those services that the government currently claims a monopoly over, because we don't want rulers.

I am in for the only true Anarchy. Actually, any stateless society pretending to be an anarchy but forbidding implicitly or explicitly the true Anarchy would be nothing more than a fake, a state in disguise...

[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.

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people?

No - it's just me insisting other people should not impose their morality on me or on anyone else.  That's all.

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?

By all means prosecute them.  I support their right to defend themselves from you.

[Walter Rothbard]

Under these circumstances, telling me that I should "keep your hands off of that which isn't yours" is imposing your morality on me.

The alternative is you imposing your morality.  Since you're okay with that, you should have no objection to other people "imposing their morality" by telling you to butt out.  In your view, they are just as justified as you and you have no way to justify imposing yourself.  In their view, you are clearly in the wrong, and you still have no way to justify imposing yourself.

[Walter Rothbard]

Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area 

Very good insight.

(I would even go so far as to say that government is a religion.  It expects a lot of blind faith.  I simply don't share the beliefs others have in the efficacy of government (as we know it) and want them to stop imposing their religion (state) on me, even though they think it's just "culture" or whatever.)

[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.

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?

Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you?

Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it.

Either people have more rights to their property than you do, or everybody has a claim to their property and a say in how it is to be used.

If everybody has a claim to property, then nobody has more claim than the owner, and thus no justification for overriding the owner's beliefs about how the property should be used.

If anybody has a right to control property, it's the person who has gone through the process of acquiring ownership.  Otherwise, nobody has that right.

Neither possibility justifies the state.

[Walter Rothbard]

What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?

It's not about having a few governments.  It's saying people like you can have rulers if that's what you want.

The rest of us say that we want competing service providers to provide those services that the government currently claims a monopoly over, because we don't want rulers.

I am in for the only true Anarchy. Actually, any stateless society pretending to be an anarchy but forbidding implicitly or explicitly the true Anarchy would be nothing more than a fake, a state in disguise...

Ah - true Scotsman anarchy!

[ErisDiscordia]

Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...

Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area  

Very good insight.

(I would even go so far as to say that government is a religion.  It expects a lot of blind faith.  I simply don't share the beliefs others have in the efficacy of government (as we know it) and want them to stop imposing their religion (state) on me, even though they think it's just "culture" or whatever.)

Yes of course it is a religion! Why do you think the Communists were so violently anti-religion? They, like all monotheistic religions, simply can't stand competition by definition.

The Cosmic Grandfather of Christianity has been replaced by the Big Brother of the government. A deity much more fitting for the materialistic age, it seems much more "real" and tangible, even to the point that people forget it is a myth. Big Brother is an even more vicious deity than the Cosmic Grandfather, because where the latter would threaten you with eternal damnation after death and demanded about one tenth of your income, Big Brother routinely takes over half of your income and makes your life living hell while you're still on earth! Of course, the omnipotence and benevolence of both of them has to be taken on faith alone, as has to be the claim, that without them, life, creation, order and all that is good, could simply not exist. To deny this is blasphemy and courts punishment from above and ostracism from all around. Better be careful! You might get burned at the stake, or thrown behind bars for not having the right morals.

[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?

No - it's just me insisting other people should not impose their morality on me or on anyone else.  That's all.

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?

By all means prosecute them.  I support their right to defend themselves from you.

They don't have a right to defend themselves.  Rights are legal creations and no-one has created a right to abuse animals.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it.

Someone could be wrong.  Rights are legal creations that reflect the moral judgement of society.  If a society deems animal abuse or female genital mutilation wrong, there is no point talking about "rights" to private property or to family privacy.  The behaviour society deems unacceptable will be punished.

[Hideyoshi]

Walter, I must keep my eye on you. You may be of help, later.

My belief is that we  must make anarchy, by making government services not as convenient as private services. In same way that file sharing made music and movie services more convenient than government-sanctioned legal services, despite file sharing being illegal. We need tools to replace government, and must make them work in a way that makes them impossible to destroy by governments (make them decentralized like bitcoin), and make it easy for people to use anonymously. In short, the only way to compete with government monopoly and make it go away is to create powerful tools that make the gray market much easier for businesses and people to work in.