How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[Hawker]

Hawker:

Ok so i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we advocate. Which is totally ok because there is wide disagreement even amongst ourselves. Mostly anarchists want humans to be as free as possible and we recognize that its not possible to perfectly predict exactly what sorts of systems will manifest in the absence of a state to serve the functions the state serves now. So as an analogy, if this was the year 1800 and i was advocating the abolition of slavery, and you said "but with out slaves how will cotton be picked" it would have been quite a long shot for me to have correctly predicted that the answer would have been the tractor. With that being said i would be happy to give it a shot.

So basically this is how i imagine that it would work: Before engaging in commerce with someone you would want to be able to feel sure that they were not going to cheat you. Recognizing this fact you would realize that, when engaging in commerce, other people would be thinking the exact same thing about you. So what you would do in order to give yourself a competitive advantage in the marketplace is buy insurance against yourself, that way you could show people that you were transacting with that you had insured them against yourself, this is called assurance. If you were well behaved than this assurance would be cheap, if engaged in behavior that would indicate to the insurance company that you were more of a risk than your rate would go up. Things like being cruel to animals would be a huge red flag and would definitely cause your rates to skyrocket. This is a mechanism of internalizing the costs of antisocial behavior, same as the idealized vision of what law is or ought to be in a statist society.

So having assurance would quickly become the societal norm and rather than checking someones reputation yourself, you would just learn the reputation of various assurance providers and do a quick check to make sure that the person you were transaction with was assured by a reputable assurance agency.

This takes care of everything except people with EXTREMELY high time preference and people who are totally out of their minds. For those sorts of people you would just have to take the risk of being attacked by one of them, buy insurance, or keep a fire arm with you at all times. Your choice.

...snip...

1. Insurance is a contractual agreement.  It doesn't exist outside of contract law.  So the situation you are talking about requires contract law, a system of courts, lawyers and enforcement staff.  We already have all that - all you are doing is taking away the democratic controls on lawmaking we have spent centuries putting in place.  
...snip...

1) Do you really think that its the state that enforces contracts? if you really truly believe this than im sorry to say that you have been living under a rock my friend. In order to get a contract enforced by the state you have to be willing to give up 10+ years of your life and about $300,000, hardly ANYONE does that. Maybe walmart inc. can do something like that but certainly not ordinary people like you and I.

In reality contracts are enforced by reputation. Suppose you make a contract with apple stipulating that if you send them money in exchange they will send you a phone. Even without courts, laws, laywers, and enforcement do you really think apple would risk damaging their reputation over a couple of hundred dollars?
...snip...

Apologies in advance for snipping so much.  I don't think a multipage post helps make things clear so will try to deal with just 1 point here.

Its absolutely is the state enforces contracts.  The reason people don't go to court is that the parties to a contract know that the court will enforce it.  Take away that certainty and companies will break contracts at will and boast about it to shareholders.  "Yes we shafted the guy but it added to your dividend.  More bonus please!"

For example, in my headhunting days, I have seen companies fire salesmen who are on the point of closing a huge deal in order to save commission.  I recruited the replacement sales executive.  It was only by being sued by the sacked salesman that the company was forced to pay the guy.  You are deluding yourself if you think that reputation matters enough to stop people taking high paying jobs. 

Laws and courts exists because they fulfill a market need.  They would exist just as much in an anarchist society because humans will still be the same.  The only question is whether they will be under democratic control.

[Zarathustra]

Its absolutely is the state enforces contracts.  The reason people don't go to court is that the parties to a contract know that the court will enforce it.  Take away that certainty and companies will break contracts at will and boast about it to shareholders.  "Yes we shafted the guy but it added to your dividend.  More bonus please!"

For example, in my headhunting days, I have seen companies fire salesmen who are on the point of closing a huge deal in order to save commission.  I recruited the replacement sales executive.  It was only by being sued by the sacked salesman that the company was forced to pay the guy.  You are deluding yourself if you think that reputation matters enough to stop people taking high paying jobs.  

Laws and courts exists because they fulfill a market need.  They would exist just as much in an anarchist society because humans will still be the same.  The only question is whether they will be under democratic control.

No state - no contract. No state - no economy. No state = anarchy = self-sufficient communities. No need for doing business with aliens there. That was the reality for 99 percent of the history of the humanity.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336594.msg3988134#msg3988134

[Hawker]

Its absolutely is the state enforces contracts.  The reason people don't go to court is that the parties to a contract know that the court will enforce it.  Take away that certainty and companies will break contracts at will and boast about it to shareholders.  "Yes we shafted the guy but it added to your dividend.  More bonus please!"

For example, in my headhunting days, I have seen companies fire salesmen who are on the point of closing a huge deal in order to save commission.  I recruited the replacement sales executive.  It was only by being sued by the sacked salesman that the company was forced to pay the guy.  You are deluding yourself if you think that reputation matters enough to stop people taking high paying jobs.  

Laws and courts exists because they fulfill a market need.  They would exist just as much in an anarchist society because humans will still be the same.  The only question is whether they will be under democratic control.

No state - no contract. No state - no economy. No state = anarchy = self-sufficient communities. No need for doing business with aliens there. That was the reality for 99 percent of the history of the humanity.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336594.msg3988134#msg3988134

So your vision is that people exist as "self sufficient communities" without an economy.

Fine.   

[deisik]

It is not my view that is being imposed on anyone. You are confused about anarchy. Anarchy does not mean that anarchists remove the rules that your government imposes on everyone, and replace them with rules that anarchists impose on everyone. Anarchy means that each individual decides what he wants to do, and each individual is free to try to impose their own rule on someone else. There are no anarchy rules to impose. That is why it is called anarchy. It is up to each individual to have good morals and logical ethical position.

This form of anarchy I call the only true Anarchy, and this is not what most "anarchists" here would consider as anarchy. So you would go for a sort of heretic among them...

That is anarcho-capitalism as I understand it. You can do whatever you wish, so long as you are aware of consequences of your action, and everyone else is free to react to your actions as they wish, without relying on law or police to tell them how they must react. How is my anarchy form different?

Probably some of them would come here and clarify on that point themselves, but the main difference as I see it is that people in those anarchists' incarnation of anarchy would willingly choose to impose on themselves a sort of a law system and strictly abide by the set rules. The problem with such society, in my opinion, is that it would always be divided into majority and minority. And as one of the proponents said, the minority would have to either adjust themselves somehow or "go away"...

To me, this kind of anarchy is not much different from what state does. If you disagree with the law, you either run away or go to jail

[Zarathustra]

Its absolutely is the state enforces contracts.  The reason people don't go to court is that the parties to a contract know that the court will enforce it.  Take away that certainty and companies will break contracts at will and boast about it to shareholders.  "Yes we shafted the guy but it added to your dividend.  More bonus please!"

For example, in my headhunting days, I have seen companies fire salesmen who are on the point of closing a huge deal in order to save commission.  I recruited the replacement sales executive.  It was only by being sued by the sacked salesman that the company was forced to pay the guy.  You are deluding yourself if you think that reputation matters enough to stop people taking high paying jobs.  

Laws and courts exists because they fulfill a market need.  They would exist just as much in an anarchist society because humans will still be the same.  The only question is whether they will be under democratic control.

No state - no contract. No state - no economy. No state = anarchy = self-sufficient communities. No need for doing business with aliens there. That was the reality for 99 percent of the history of the humanity.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336594.msg3988134#msg3988134

So your vision is that people exist as "self sufficient communities" without an economy.

Fine.   

These are the 2 options that were possible in our history. The self-sufficient human in the community or the ruled citizen as an enslaved cartoon of a human within hypercollectives which grow rampant until they collapse. Your choice.

[Hawker]

Its absolutely is the state enforces contracts.  The reason people don't go to court is that the parties to a contract know that the court will enforce it.  Take away that certainty and companies will break contracts at will and boast about it to shareholders.  "Yes we shafted the guy but it added to your dividend.  More bonus please!"

For example, in my headhunting days, I have seen companies fire salesmen who are on the point of closing a huge deal in order to save commission.  I recruited the replacement sales executive.  It was only by being sued by the sacked salesman that the company was forced to pay the guy.  You are deluding yourself if you think that reputation matters enough to stop people taking high paying jobs.  

Laws and courts exists because they fulfill a market need.  They would exist just as much in an anarchist society because humans will still be the same.  The only question is whether they will be under democratic control.

No state - no contract. No state - no economy. No state = anarchy = self-sufficient communities. No need for doing business with aliens there. That was the reality for 99 percent of the history of the humanity.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336594.msg3988134#msg3988134

So your vision is that people exist as "self sufficient communities" without an economy.

Fine.   

These are the 2 options that were possible in our history. The self-sufficient human in the community or the ruled citizen as an enslaved cartoon of a human within hypercollectives which grow rampant until they collapse. Your choice.

2013 has been probably the best year in human history.  Life has never been better for a greater number of people.  Stop being such a fool and look at how good life is.

[u9y42]

2013 has been probably the best year in human history.  Life has never been better for a greater number of people.  Stop being such a fool and look at how good life is.

Even if our lives are in many respects better than they could have been in the past, that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways to improve them further.

[Anon136]

Hawker:

Ok so i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we advocate. Which is totally ok because there is wide disagreement even amongst ourselves. Mostly anarchists want humans to be as free as possible and we recognize that its not possible to perfectly predict exactly what sorts of systems will manifest in the absence of a state to serve the functions the state serves now. So as an analogy, if this was the year 1800 and i was advocating the abolition of slavery, and you said "but with out slaves how will cotton be picked" it would have been quite a long shot for me to have correctly predicted that the answer would have been the tractor. With that being said i would be happy to give it a shot.

So basically this is how i imagine that it would work: Before engaging in commerce with someone you would want to be able to feel sure that they were not going to cheat you. Recognizing this fact you would realize that, when engaging in commerce, other people would be thinking the exact same thing about you. So what you would do in order to give yourself a competitive advantage in the marketplace is buy insurance against yourself, that way you could show people that you were transacting with that you had insured them against yourself, this is called assurance. If you were well behaved than this assurance would be cheap, if engaged in behavior that would indicate to the insurance company that you were more of a risk than your rate would go up. Things like being cruel to animals would be a huge red flag and would definitely cause your rates to skyrocket. This is a mechanism of internalizing the costs of antisocial behavior, same as the idealized vision of what law is or ought to be in a statist society.

So having assurance would quickly become the societal norm and rather than checking someones reputation yourself, you would just learn the reputation of various assurance providers and do a quick check to make sure that the person you were transaction with was assured by a reputable assurance agency.

This takes care of everything except people with EXTREMELY high time preference and people who are totally out of their minds. For those sorts of people you would just have to take the risk of being attacked by one of them, buy insurance, or keep a fire arm with you at all times. Your choice.

...snip...

1. Insurance is a contractual agreement.  It doesn't exist outside of contract law.  So the situation you are talking about requires contract law, a system of courts, lawyers and enforcement staff.  We already have all that - all you are doing is taking away the democratic controls on lawmaking we have spent centuries putting in place.  
...snip...

1) Do you really think that its the state that enforces contracts? if you really truly believe this than im sorry to say that you have been living under a rock my friend. In order to get a contract enforced by the state you have to be willing to give up 10+ years of your life and about $300,000, hardly ANYONE does that. Maybe walmart inc. can do something like that but certainly not ordinary people like you and I.

In reality contracts are enforced by reputation. Suppose you make a contract with apple stipulating that if you send them money in exchange they will send you a phone. Even without courts, laws, laywers, and enforcement do you really think apple would risk damaging their reputation over a couple of hundred dollars?
...snip...

Its absolutely is the state enforces contracts.  The reason people don't go to court is that the parties to a contract know that the court will enforce it.  Take away that certainty and companies will break contracts at will and boast about it to shareholders.

I think it is very wise to snip and deal with one point at a time. No apology necissary.

So your position is that, in our imaginary case with apple, if the courts did not enforce your contract with apple than apple would take your money and not send the phone? let me just make sure i have that 100% right before i proceed.

[Hawker]

...massive snip...

I think it is very wise to snip and deal with one point at a time. No apology necissary.

So your position is that, in our imaginary case with apple, if the courts did not enforce your contract with apple than apple would take your money and not send the phone? let me just make sure i have that 100% right before i proceed.

Hmmm.  

I want to agree with you but I can't.  If contracts were not enforceable, Apple would not exist.  Since its products are mainly commercial applications of government developments and since its a company that lives on litigation, the idea is so hypothetical as to be impossible to imagine.  It just could not happen.

EDIT: what I am saying is that a company like apple could not exist without the huge state support of patents, contract law, cheap government loans and taxpayer funded research that made it possible.  Its just inconceivable that the other essential examples would exist without a contract law. 

For normal companies, even with the law being enforceable, litigation is essential.  Intelligent reasonable people disagree.  Courts and laws are a response to that fact. 

[Anon136]

...massive snip...

I think it is very wise to snip and deal with one point at a time. No apology necissary.

So your position is that, in our imaginary case with apple, if the courts did not enforce your contract with apple than apple would take your money and not send the phone? let me just make sure i have that 100% right before i proceed.

Hmmm.  

I want to agree with you but I can't.  If contracts were not enforceable, Apple would not exist.  Since its products are mainly commercial applications of government developments and since its a company that lives on litigation, the idea is so hypothetical as to be impossible to imagine.  It just could not happen.

EDIT: what I am saying is that a company like apple could not exist without the huge state support of patents, contract law, cheap government loans and taxpayer funded research that made it possible.  Its just inconceivable that the other essential examples would exist without a contract law. 

For normal companies, even with the law being enforceable, litigation is essential.  Intelligent reasonable people disagree.  Courts and laws are a response to that fact. 

its true that state contract enforcement is available to large corporations and the clinically insane. its true that apple was built upon a foundation of such contract enforcement. i agree with all of this but i dont think its relevant to the question, and the underlying principal that I'm trying to hit at here.

I'm asking something very specific. Suppose you personally contract with apple. The contract stipulates that if you send apple X number of dollars, they promise to send you an iphone in return. Further suppose that you and apple both recieve a letter from the government stating that they refuse to enforce this particular contract. Do you think it is likely that apple would violate this contract?

[Hawker]

...massive snip...

I think it is very wise to snip and deal with one point at a time. No apology necissary.

So your position is that, in our imaginary case with apple, if the courts did not enforce your contract with apple than apple would take your money and not send the phone? let me just make sure i have that 100% right before i proceed.

Hmmm.  

I want to agree with you but I can't.  If contracts were not enforceable, Apple would not exist.  Since its products are mainly commercial applications of government developments and since its a company that lives on litigation, the idea is so hypothetical as to be impossible to imagine.  It just could not happen.

EDIT: what I am saying is that a company like apple could not exist without the huge state support of patents, contract law, cheap government loans and taxpayer funded research that made it possible.  Its just inconceivable that the other essential examples would exist without a contract law. 

For normal companies, even with the law being enforceable, litigation is essential.  Intelligent reasonable people disagree.  Courts and laws are a response to that fact. 

its true that state contract enforcement is available to large corporations and the clinically insane. its true that apple was built upon a foundation of such contract enforcement. i agree with all of this but i dont think its relevant to the question, and the underlying principal that I'm trying to hit at here.

I'm asking something very specific. Suppose you personally contract with apple. The contract stipulates that if you send apple X number of dollars, they promise to send you an iphone in return. Further suppose that you and apple both recieve a letter from the government stating that they refuse to enforce this particular contract. Do you think it is likely that apple would violate this contract?

Apple would not exist without contract law.  It would not have phones to sell without contract law.   Neither would any other company as they a legal creations based on state support.  Reasonable intelligent people can disagree - it would be nice if you made an argument rather than ask me to indulge in crazy hypotheticals.

[Anon136]

Apple would not exist without contract law.  It would not have phones to sell without contract law.   Neither would any other company as they a legal creations based on state support.

This is COMPLETELY irrelevant for the point that I'm trying to make. Now please, answer the question.

[Ruzka]

I'm not sure if it ever could start working..

[Ekaros]

Just think how bad mobile networks and other radio networks would be without regulation?

The strongest transmitter would win, and usefulness of the system would likely be very low...

Wifi would also be interesting, just think about the microwave ovens without proper protections, wreaking havoc to data transmissions...

In some cases forcing regulation and standards is beneficial.

[Hawker]

Apple would not exist without contract law.  It would not have phones to sell without contract law.   Neither would any other company as they a legal creations based on state support.

This is COMPLETELY irrelevant for the point that I'm trying to make. Now please, answer the question.

Actually it is relevant.  You are trying to frame an argument and you want to use a state created entity called a company that has a state created value called Intellectual Property in its brand and then transfer the benefits of that to a non-state situation where there can't be companies and where there can't be brands.

So, take the word "Apple" out and we are in business.  If the question you ask is whether a fictional person would walk away from contracts if it decided it was more profitable to rip off customers than to provided the contracted service and if there was no way to enforce contracts.

Answer: yes.  Some guys would do that.  

[cczarek123]

As long as it takes until people learn how to look after themselves.

[Anon136]

Apple would not exist without contract law.  It would not have phones to sell without contract law.   Neither would any other company as they a legal creations based on state support.

This is COMPLETELY irrelevant for the point that I'm trying to make. Now please, answer the question.

Actually it is relevant.  You are trying to frame an argument and you want to use a state created entity called a company that has a state created value called Intellectual Property in its brand and then transfer the benefits of that to a non-state situation where there can't be companies and where there can't be brands.

So, take the word "Apple" out and we are in business.  If the question you ask is whether a fictional person would walk away from contracts if it decided it was more profitable to rip off customers than to provided the contracted service and if there was no way to enforce contracts.

Answer: yes.  Some guys would do that.  

Ok so its really unfortunate that you are forcing this debate down from the level of government vs anarchy into whether contracts can be enforced by means other than law and now down EVEN further into epistemology and the fundamental characteristics of logical abstraction and how they apply to the art of argumentation. But I'm willing to go where the debate takes me. So im going to try to make this as mechanical as possible with the shortest leaps possible in each step but i need you to work with me. I cant have you debating arguments that i havnt made yet. Once i say something fallacious then point that out but please dont bother telling me about some mistake that im going to make in the future but havnt made yet. Unless you have supernatural abilities, in which case we should talk about that instead.

I dont know what you mean by "some guys would do that" the contract is that if Allice sends Apple X amount of dollars, than apple promises to send allice an iphone. what does "some guys" have to do with this?

[Hawker]

Apple would not exist without contract law.  It would not have phones to sell without contract law.   Neither would any other company as they a legal creations based on state support.

This is COMPLETELY irrelevant for the point that I'm trying to make. Now please, answer the question.

Actually it is relevant.  You are trying to frame an argument and you want to use a state created entity called a company that has a state created value called Intellectual Property in its brand and then transfer the benefits of that to a non-state situation where there can't be companies and where there can't be brands.

So, take the word "Apple" out and we are in business.  If the question you ask is whether a fictional person would walk away from contracts if it decided it was more profitable to rip off customers than to provided the contracted service and if there was no way to enforce contracts.

Answer: yes.  Some guys would do that.  

Ok so its really unfortunate that you are forcing this debate down from the level of government vs anarchy into whether contracts can be enforced by means other than law and now down EVEN further into epistemology and the fundamental characteristics of logical abstraction and how they apply to the art of argumentation. But I'm willing to go where the debate takes me. So im going to try to make this as mechanical as possible with the shortest leaps possible in each step but i need you to work with me. I cant have you debating arguments that i havnt made yet. Once i say something fallacious then point that out but please dont bother telling me about some mistake that im going to make in the future but havnt made yet. Unless you have supernatural abilities, in which case we should talk about that instead.

I dont know what you mean by "some guys would do that" the contract is that if Allice sends Apple X amount of dollars, than apple promises to send allice an iphone. what does "some guys" have to do with this?

Its unfortunate that you are delaying making an argument that reputation based trade could work.  Forget your little leaps - make your case in 1 go please :-)

[Hideyoshi]

That is anarcho-capitalism as I understand it. You can do whatever you wish, so long as you are aware of consequences of your action, and everyone else is free to react to your actions as they wish, without relying on law or police to tell them how they must react. How is my anarchy form different?

The one and only form of anarchy in the history of mankind is the self-sufficient community. There is no such thing as individualism in the human nature. A human is neither an individualist nor a (hyper-) collectivist (citizen). Anarchy in the world of the reality means individualistic (stateless, unruled) communities.
Matrilineal anarchy was slowly replaced by patriarchy (= organized violence, state and church) about 10'000 years ago.

That is what I support and wish to build, too, yes. People are social animals. They can not live completely independently, and will form communities with personal beliefs and cultures. I see no problem with such idea, and do not think it conflicts with anarcho-capitalism. In fact, I think it would be good for such groups to compete against each other in producing best educated children, most skilled workers, and best products.

[Hideyoshi]

If your idea of anarchy is worthwhile, it has to offer something better than what we have now in our real lives.

No it does not. It just has to offer something more ethical and more just. And besides, it is very easy to offer something better than what we have now.

You offer a society in which "Professionals with black clothing and silenced weapons" are killing people for animal cruelty and then seek to justify that by arguing its exactly how things work now.

I admitted it may have been too harsh, but it is not out of realm of what may be possible in future. Not because it will be legal or allowable, but because it will simply be possible.

Why not compare your "Professionals with black clothing and silenced weapons" instant execution system with the real world in which a death sentence requires a jury and years of careful examination of the facts?  Your idea is certain to involve a lot more people being killed.

You live in sheltered world if you believe that is what requires death sentence. From what I hear, Texas is very happy to make death sentences with little review, and are proud of it. That may be true in Florida, too. America is very quick to give death sentence without jury to those living in middle east and north Africa. China and other totalitarian countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are much happy to give death sentences without trials, and even democratic Russia is known to give death sentences that are not just. Also, supposedly 90% of accusations end up never going into court, and get settled because of threats of much harsher sentences. Even if not death sentence, many people in current "better" system have many years of their life stolen from them as they spend it in jails. I do not think it is very difficult to come up with better system, and at worst, we will just just as horrible system as we have now.

Any decent society will have a clear separation between the judicial act of deciding to kill someone and the executive act of killing them.

That is happy fairy tale that is not true, and maybe never was, simply because this rule is not given evenly to everyone. If state thinks you are really bad, they will just ignore this rule, and you know it.