A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre

[memvola]

The truly dangerous people are the leftist and the religious who put you in the boot of a car and administer their own justice.  

Evidently I'm better with the leftist and the religious than the police.

What I am saying is that we know violence is inevitable but that a police force in a democratic state is a better bet than letting anyone with a money to hire militias and do what they want.  I think that is true in countries that are half democratic with police forces that are sort of accountable as well.  The better way is to have more democracy and more accountability.

I don't mean to revive the discussion, but since we've already established that the system itself is not enough, I don't see much difference between letting anyone hire militias and your democratic way, other than the fact that we've already paid the price of the latter. If you suddenly opened the floodgates and let people manage their own security, I'm sure the same would happen again, millions would suffer until a more coherent state is reached. That doesn't mean the core idea is bad. If we agree that interdependence and fluidity could be enough for such a solution to work, and that it would indeed be better, then maybe we can also find a way to make a leap without such a destructive path of evolution.

[FirstAscent]

You fail to recognize what a society of hiring militias would be like sans police and government intervention. Your only point of reference is what misfortunes might befall you in a world that has police. Sadly, it's the mistake most make here when advocating privatized liberties.

[memvola]

You fail to recognize what a society of hiring militias would be like sans police and government intervention. Your only point of reference is what misfortunes might befall you in a world that has police. Sadly, it's the mistake most make here when advocating privatized liberties.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? From the point where I said millions would suffer?

First off, there isn't a prototype human being, or a "human nature" that has more of a say in this matter than the cultural norms. In other words, humans are very programmable. If we have to require them to be vigilant in some manner, why not require them to be vigilant in some other way? So I think the situation is contrary, you're arguing from lack of imagination, merely constructing an image about immediate outcomes of some enforced circumstances. I'm not so confident that a specific approach is better than what you propose as the ultimate solution, but it sure as hell is debatable.

For instance, when nukes were possible but not yet available, even discussing the feasibility of mutually assured destruction must have seemed crazy to most people. Is it counter-intuitive though? I don't think so. It just wasn't common sense. Now it is.

I think the idea is to identify the assumptions we need to make about the society in order for the conclusion to differ from your scenario (yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here). I don't find the "humans are crap" argument very satisfying.

[justusranvier]

(yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here)

Not at all. The argument against the state is a moral argument, just like the argument against slavery. It is no more necessary for anarchists to predict how a society would function without a state than it was necessary for abolitionists to predict how agriculture would work in the absence of slave labor.

Everybody already accepts that compulsion is wrong when they are on the receiving end of it; the job of the anarchist is to get people to accept that the excuses which are commonly used to justify exceptions to this principle are invalid.

[Hawker]

(yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here)

Not at all. The argument against the state is a moral argument, just like the argument against slavery. It is no more necessary for anarchists to predict how a society would function without a state than it was necessary for abolitionists to predict how agriculture would work in the absence of slave labor.

Everybody already accepts that compulsion is wrong when they are on the receiving end of it; the job of the anarchist is to get people to accept that the excuses which are commonly used to justify exceptions to this principle are invalid.

But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion.  Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want.  You want to take the restraints away.  That is not a strong moral argument.

[justusranvier]

But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion.  Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want.

How do you know what you are saying is objectively true instead of just being a story?

[Hawker]

But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion.  Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want.

How do you know what you are saying is objectively true instead of just being a story?

There is this thing called history.  It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness.  You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes.  But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.

[justusranvier]

There is this thing called history.  It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness.  You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes.  But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.

So how well does the state model restrain the actions of the government? Just to pick on the the US for the moment, I don't see any effective restraint at all. Agents of the government seem to be able to act with near impunity and have an unimaginable amount of resources at their disposal. Exactly what is being restrained here?

[Hawker]

There is this thing called history.  It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness.  You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes.  But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.

So how well does the state model restrain the actions of the government? Just to pick on the the US for the moment, I don't see any effective restraint at all. Agents of the government seem to be able to act with near impunity and have an unimaginable amount of resources at their disposal. Exactly what is being restrained here?

You see that's where reality and daydreams part company.  In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die.  In the US, if you carry out an egregious killing, you may die but first you have 10 or so years of trials and appeals.  The reason for that is that the US executive requires authority from its judiciary to kill someone.  

I'm sure you have some anecdote about someone who died despite this system.  But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.

[justusranvier]

But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.

The two largest problems I see in this post is that the tribalism and theocracy in Somalia represent anarchy instead of just another form of government and that the killing of citizens by law enforcement is the only measure of state violence.

[Hawker]

But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.

The two largest problems I see in this post is that the tribalism and theocracy in Somalia represent anarchy instead of just another form of government and that the killing of citizens by law enforcement is the only measure of state violence.

Then you need to read it again.

In a proper system, the person who is acting on behalf of the community to enforce order has to follow a law that is made by someone else and has to get permission from a judge.  Its called separation of powers. 

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state. 

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope.  The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you.  They can come to your house when they like and do as they please.  And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court.  It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right.  If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

Can you see the problem with this?  And why having those guys subject to law is better?

[memvola]

In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die.

One can argue that it works that way, not because Americans are more vigilant, but there isn't any real threat against the regime.

And yet, less "criminals" suffer under the fist of the government in both those countries (in peace time). You think more "good people" suffer under China's regime, and that's why you perceive a contrast. That's an ad hoc judgement and results from how you are raised in the first place. How do you know (or how does the State know) those kinds of offenders should not be killed? What if everyone was okay with it, out of fear or out of being brainwashed by a dream?

I'm not saying the USA is worse or anything like that, but it seems to me that your claim requires you to be neutral in these cases.

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state. 

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope.  The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you.  They can come to your house when they like and do as they please.  And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court.  It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right.  If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

This is what I was talking about. The picture you present is also a dream. Seriously, why do you omit a possible transitional period? Why don't you question what could be done to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?

With this attitude, how on Earth can you think Bitcoin could succeed? Look at history. There hasn't been a single currency who survived State monopoly, even gold. Besides, the history of Bitcoin is nothing but a series of thefts and scams.

[Hawker]

In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die.

One can argue that it works that way, not because Americans are more vigilant, but there isn't any real threat against the regime.

And yet, less "criminals" suffer under the fist of the government in both those countries (in peace time). You think more "good people" suffer under China's regime, and that's why you perceive a contrast. That's an ad hoc judgement and results from how you are raised in the first place. How do you know (or how does the State know) those kinds of offenders should not be killed? What if everyone was okay with it, out of fear or out of being brainwashed by a dream?

I'm not saying the USA is worse or anything like that, but it seems to me that your claim requires you to be neutral in these cases.

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state. 

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope.  The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you.  They can come to your house when they like and do as they please.  And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court.  It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right.  If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

This is what I was talking about. The picture you present is also a dream. Seriously, why do you omit a possible transitional period? Why don't you question what could be done to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?

With this attitude, how on Earth can you think Bitcoin could succeed? Look at history. There hasn't been a single currency who survived State monopoly, even gold. Besides, the history of Bitcoin is nothing but a series of thefts and scams.

I do a lot of business in China and I have a friend who was arrested last week.  Life for Chinese people who are not Party members is very arbitrary and they don't like it.  The ideal of buying your own house and having freedom to do business is not some cultural artefact.  People everywhere hate when an official comes along, arrests them and they have to pay to retain their own property.

I accept that I don't see how a transitional period to anarchy would work.  Americans seem obsessed with locking up criminals.  Take away your legal system and they will be obsessed with lynching criminals.  I know you think the system is what makes Americans brutal.  I think that its Americans make their own system brutal.  You only have to look at Mick Huckabee and Michael Dukakis.  2 decent men whose political careers were terminated because they showed mercy to criminals. 

Bitcoin is actually very useful for moving money without needing banks to help you.  I don't think it will ever be used to buy drinks in a bar but it will be used to buy yachts and jets and the like.