NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe laws cannot be properly enforced without a government; who disagrees?

I believe laws cannot be properly enforced without a government; who disagrees?

define 'government'

I believe laws cannot be properly enforced without a government; who disagrees?

Me.

Burn down the establishment! All the cool kids are doing it!

Me.

Please elaborate.

define 'government'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

define 'government'

The monopoly on violence in a region.

I believe laws cannot be properly enforced without a government; who disagrees?
Without government, there would be no laws to enforce?

Without government, there would be no laws to enforce?

I think there could be...If the US Government were to somehow cease to exist tomorrow, would the Constitution not still codify a set of Laws and Rights?


enforcing it however, is a different issue, I think you would need some type of governing body in order to enforce them, whether it be a traditional form, or a dictatorship of Biker Gangs....

I think there could be...If the US Government were to somehow cease to exist tomorrow, would the Constitution not still codify a set of Laws and Rights?


enforcing it however, is a different issue, I think you would need some type of governing body in order to enforce them, whether it be a traditional form, or a dictatorship of Biker Gangs....

^This.

I think there could be...If the US Government were to somehow cease to exist tomorrow, would the Constitution not still codify a set of Laws and Rights?


enforcing it however, is a different issue, I think you would need some type of governing body in order to enforce them, whether it be a traditional form, or a dictatorship of Biker Gangs....

^This.
I beg to differ:

Anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy):

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
"Laws" would be irrelevant.

I beg to differ:

Anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy):


"Laws" would be irrelevant.

Conceded.

I believe laws cannot be properly enforced without a government; who disagrees?

If there were no government then laws would be meaningless. People would enforce what they believed was right through social norms, taboos, and themselves.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

if government is defined as that which makes and enforces laws, the whole question seems...odd. especially since that presumably isn't the definition your opponent had in mind, and therefore you are just talking past each other.

I beg to differ:

Anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy):

"Laws" would be irrelevant.

there is a slight difference between laws being irrelevant/unenforceable and laws not existing. laws don't go away when somebody gets away with breaking them.

there is a slight difference between laws being irrelevant/unenforceable and laws not existing. laws don't go away when somebody gets away with breaking them.

If the government that created the law is no longer in existence, wouldn't that make the laws it put into effect no longer existent?

if government is defined as that which makes and enforces laws, the whole question seems...odd. especially since that presumably isn't the definition your opponent had in mind, and therefore you are just talking past each other.

He is welcome to offer his definition when he logs-on.

If the government that created the law is no longer in existence, wouldn't that make the laws it put into effect no longer existent?
maybe? things usually sort of just roll over when governments change, but perhaps it is different in the interim?

maybe? things usually sort of just roll over when governments change, but perhaps it is different in the interim?

I thought we were saying there were no government at all, as in, the government collapsed or something. That's a bit different than a president coming in.

there is a slight difference between laws being irrelevant/unenforceable and laws not existing. laws don't go away when somebody gets away with breaking them.
Splitting hairs? When there is no governance, laws can "exist" on a piece of paper, but as soon as someone torches them, they no longer "exist".

I thought we were saying there were no government at all, as in, the government collapsed or something. That's a bit different than a president coming in.

i actually mean that the laws typically roll over when you kick out your oppressors or whatever - they have to be actively changed rather than starting from scratch. so it seems to me that someone could hold that the laws continue to exist after the collapse as there is no one with the authority to say they don't.

But there would be no government.

No government, no enforcement, no law.

But there would be no government.

No government, no enforcement, no law.

two questions
1) was the islamic courts union in somalia a government?
2) when the government neglects to enforce some law that remains on the books, does it cease to be a law?

two questions
1) was the islamic courts union in somalia a government?
2) when the government neglects to enforce some law that remains on the books, does it cease to be a law?

1. I haven't a clue.
2. In effect.

You still aren't getting it though. The Byzantine Empire is no more. Its laws are no longer in affect. Catch my meaning?

two questions
1) was the islamic courts union in somalia a government?
According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Courts_Union)....yes.

2) when the government neglects to enforce some law that remains on the books, does it cease to be a law?
No. Your point?

Please elaborate.

Because I don't believe a state of anarchism and the existence of laws are mutually exclusive.

I may elaborate further. Maybe. But, having argued this very topic dozens of times with friends over MSN, I have realized the futility of it. Either you believe anarchy is workable or you do not; it is almost impossible to change a person's view on the subject either way. Many, present company included, have made the effort, with no results.

Because I don't believe a state of anarchism and the existence of laws are mutually exclusive.

but accepting the government as source of law definition, isn't the obvious move to claim that anarchism doesn't give up on governance?

There is never no government, only the scale of government can change. Even in the situation of a few people living together there is a form of "government". Laws simply adapt to the scale of government, and the amount of enforcement the lawgiver is prepared to use.
In any case, there cannot be a state of lawlessness, because even a single isolated person lets himself be governed by some form of rules he believes to be good or necessary to live by, and on the scale of a single person, these are the equivalent of laws.

There is never no government, only the scale of government can change. Even in the situation of a few people living together there is a form of "government". Laws simply adapt to the scale of government, and the amount of enforcement the lawgiver is prepared to use.
In any case, there cannot be a state of lawlessness, because even a single isolated person lets himself be governed by some form of rules he believes to be good or necessary to live by, and on the scale of a single person, these are the equivalent of laws.
Self governance does not equate to "government". There are no structured "laws" in an anarchist society.

There are no structured "laws" in an anarchist society.

and i, as an anarchist, say that there most certainly would be

According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Courts_Union)....yes.

so you are using the expanded definition of government. it is difficult to conceive of how any society of more than two people could exist without one, then. which means that 'government' is more or less irrelevant here.

No. Your point?

that laws don't simply go away when nobody enforces them, and therefore it is at least plausible that someone could hold that the old laws remain laws after the collapse of a government. didn't you follow the conversation?

Anarchism = fail.

Anarchism is even more retarded than communism.

Anarchism is even more retarded than communism.

What of anarcho-communism?

that laws don't simply go away when nobody enforces them, and therefore it is at least plausible that someone could hold that the old laws remain laws after the collapse of a government. didn't you follow the conversation?

Without an organized group (in est, police) enforcing laws, anybody could say any law existed, but what validity would the statement hold? One could say it is against God's law to be homosexual, but without an enforcer, that is just a statement.

What laws do we need a government to enforce? Aside from matters like murder, rape, theft, vandalism, and breach of contract, where do we need any form of law?

*is economic anarcho-capitalist, social minarchist*

*edit* I suppose this is the end of that condition green (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14651814&postcount=102) :p

What laws do we need a government to enforce? Aside from matters like murder, rape, theft, vandalism, and breach of contract, where do we need any form of law?

Domestic violence, kidnapping, drug regulations (not recreational ones, but ones that doctors sell as medicine)--yes, all of those laws require a government to enforce.

*is economic anarcho-capitalist, social minarchist*

*is skeptic*

*edit* I suppose this is the end of that condition green (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14651814&postcount=102) :p

Meh, nobody cares about government types.

Governments are put into place because it is essential they exist. There does not exist and has never existed an anti-society void of government. The state of nature is a purely hypothetical place.

Edit: Oh! Except international relations. There's no government there. But that's different because its a collection of governments and nations and not people.

Domestic violence, kidnapping, drug regulations (not recreational ones, but ones that doctors sell as medicine)--yes, all of those laws require a government to enforce.

Why do we need government food & drug regulation? Couldn't a private company test and rate such things? We have the UL test and rate electrical appliances and such, and they are a highly-respected private company. Couldn't that model work in other fields? It's not like the FDA has a stellar track record and no allegations of misconduct, and a private company would be open to lawsuit should they fail to follow proper testing procedures.

Why do we need government food & drug regulation? Couldn't a private company test and rate such things? We have the UL test and rate electrical appliances and such, and they are a highly-respected private company. Couldn't that model work in other fields? It's not like the FDA has a stellar track record and no allegations of misconduct, and a private company would be open to lawsuit should they fail to follow proper testing procedures.

Without a government and regulations, companies would have no incentive to test their products for safety to meet the stringent standards we place upon them. Thus a company like UL would not exist. Plus, a lawsuit from where? Is there another company whom all other companies submit to in order that the consumer has power over those companies which submitted? Sounds like a government to me.

Why do we need government food & drug regulation? Couldn't a private company test and rate such things? We have the UL test and rate electrical appliances and such, and they are a highly-respected private company. Couldn't that model work in other fields? It's not like the FDA has a stellar track record and no allegations of misconduct, and a private company would be open to lawsuit should they fail to follow proper testing procedures.

"Lawsuit"? how would that work? What else do you recommend? privatizing the police?

Please read this:

http://www.readerspeak.com/jennifer.jpg

Without a government and regulations, companies would have no incentive to test their products for safety to meet the stringent standards we place upon them.

Of course, because as we all know, companies have no incentives in keeping their customers safe. None whatsoever.

Of course, because as we all know,

You know, when I only read half of your posts, they don't make much sense.

Of course, because as we all know, companies have no incentives in keeping their customers safe. None whatsoever.

Does the incentive outweigh the extra cost of making the product safe? If a product can kill, but only in a small percentage of cases, and it would be cost-prohibitive to make the product not kill ever, what would a company do? Stop making their product out of some noble respect for the lives of their consumer? Or try to make as much money as they could and just shrug off the occasional consumer death?

Does the incentive outweigh the extra cost of making the product safe? If a product can kill, but only in a small percentage of cases, and it would be cost-prohibitive to make the product not kill ever, what would a company do? Stop making their product out of some noble respect for the lives of their consumer? Or try to make as much money as they could and just shrug off the occasional consumer death?

Even if only a small percentage of consumers died, you can bet that company's rivals would milk that fact for all it's worth and lure customers away. Also, the fact that people dying would obviously sour the company's reputation, anyway, and fewer people would buy from them.

Does the incentive outweigh the extra cost of making the product safe? If a product can kill, but only in a small percentage of cases, and it would be cost-prohibitive to make the product not kill ever, what would a company do? Stop making their product out of some noble respect for the lives of their consumer? Or try to make as much money as they could and just shrug off the occasional consumer death?

We already know the answer: no. This was revealed by the famous "Pinto Memo" from Ford, wherin the cost of lawsuits resulting from deaths/injuries from Ford Pinto accidents was compared to the cost of redesigning the car; since the latter would cost more, no redesign was attempted.

And this was in an environment of safety mandates and controls. In an anarchic environment, not only would the redesign not occur, but Ford would continue to make Pintos even when the whistle was blown, for as long as they continued to sell.

Even if only a small percentage of consumers died, you can bet that company's rivals would milk that fact for all it's worth and lure customers away. Also, the fact that people dying would obviously sour the company's reputation, anyway, and fewer people would buy from them.

Are we talking about actual markets here, or are we talking about perfectly competitive markets? Cause it sounds to me like you're mixing the two.

And this was in an environment of safety mandates and controls. In an anarchic environment, not only would the redesign not occur, but Ford would continue to make Pintos even when the whistle was blown, for as long as they continued to sell.

You really think people would be dumb to keep buying something that dangerous? You have an even lower opinion of the average person than I do.

Are we talking about actual markets here, or are we talking about perfectly competitive markets? Cause it sounds to me like you're mixing the two.

I'm talking about a genuine free market.

You really think people would be dumb to keep buying something that dangerous? You have an even lower opinion of the average person than I do.

That may well be true (I tend to view the average person as vermin), but in this case it's not necessarily stupidity. Some people will ALWAYS just not hear the news, and others will not believe it.

Even if only a small percentage of consumers died, you can bet that company's rivals would milk that fact for all it's worth and lure customers away. Also, the fact that people dying would obviously sour the company's reputation, anyway, and fewer people would buy from them.

And if the company didn't give people a choice? What if the company was the manufacturer of a necessity, and estalished a monopoly over a certain area? People need this product. They'll only maybe die if they use the product; they'll definitely die if they don't (say, antibiotics or food). The company figures that they have an established market, and the cost of compensating the relatives of the deceased outweighs redesigning their product to make it safe for everyone. What recourse is there?

And if the company didn't give people a choice? What if the company was the manufacturer of a necessity, and estalished a monopoly over a certain area? People need this product. They'll only maybe die if they use the product; they'll definitely die if they don't (say, antibiotics or food). The company figures that they have an established market, and the cost of compensating the relatives of the deceased outweighs redesigning their product to make it safe for everyone. What recourse is there?

What's stopping anyone else from entering the field and releasing an alternative product?

I'm talking about a genuine free market.

Any economist of any sort will agree that government is necessary for any market to function efficiently.

What's stopping anyone else from entering the field and releasing an alternative product?

We're talking about monopolies? Well, monopolies can only exist where there are high enough barriers to entry that there is no competition.

Any economist of any sort will agree that government is necessary for any market to function efficiently.

False. Not all economists agree. Most do, but not all.

We're talking about monopolies? Well, monopolies can only exist where there are high enough barriers to entry that there is no competition.

Such as the barriers erected by governments?

What's stopping anyone else from entering the field and releasing an alternative product?

The company in question has a lot of guns.

We're talking about monopolies? Well, monopolies can only exist where there are high enough barriers to entry that there is no competition.

The existence of the monopoly itself is often a sufficient barrier. If the monopolist company pursues such strategies as vertical integration and centralized mass production for the purposes of economies of scale, no competitor will be able to get off the ground, since the monopolist will always be able to sell product at a significantly lower price and still make a profit. Once that has been proven to the market's satisfaction, the monopolist can then raise prices to whatever level it chooses and ignore the possibility of competition - since any person attempting to compete will fail to gather functional credit, seeing as the lending institutions will not give money to a company that cannot succeed.

The company in question has a lot of guns.

And? There will always be competition. Always. Unless they kill everyone else.

that laws don't simply go away when nobody enforces them,
Without government enforcement, "laws" are just pieces of paper without validity. These "laws" may "exist" but are virtually meaningless in an anarchistic society.

and therefore it is at least plausible that someone could hold that the old laws remain laws after the collapse of a government.
"Someone could hold that the old laws remain laws" but will that same person be able to contend that those "laws" are indeed enforceable? Without policing and/or judicial interpretation, just how valid are these "paper" laws?

didn't you follow the conversation?
No need to stoke the fire? :D

Even if only a small percentage of consumers died, you can bet that company's rivals would milk that fact for all it's worth and lure customers away. Also, the fact that people dying would obviously sour the company's reputation, anyway, and fewer people would buy from them.

This is like Reaganomics: it works in theory but not in practice. First-off, companies would band together into trusts, ruining the lives of the consumers by collectively lower wages, raising prices, and producing shoddy goods. Next, companies would create armies to enforce their "free-market", which would allow them to sell drugs to ten-year-olds.

You would do well to remember what life under The East India Company was like.

This is like Reaganomics: it works in theory but not in practice. First-off, companies would band together into trusts, ruining the lives of the consumers by collectively lower wages, raising prices, and producing shoddy goods. Next, companies would create armies to enforce their "free-market",

No one would buy their shoddy goods, and they would quickly lose customers. If they paid their workers wages too low, the workers would quit. If they rose prices too high, no one would buy from them.

which would allow them to sell drugs to ten-year-olds.

And?

You would do well to remember what life under The East India Company was like.

Ah, the same East India Company that enjoyed special privileges from the British government?

No one would buy their shoddy goods, and they would quickly lose customers. If they paid their workers wages too low, the workers would quit. If they rose prices too high, no one would buy from them.

That is not how it works. The people will, and can, never stop buying the necessities of life. They just take their children out of school and send them to work to "make-ends-meet". The average citizen of many Asian countries earns a pretty shitty wage, but still keeps working--he lives in total poverty.

And?

I object to children being coaxed into stealing so they can buy a product which is poison, all the while being told it is feel-good candy.

Ah, the same East India Company that enjoyed special privileges from the British government?

Like tax exemptions and lack of regulation--when the company was challenged, it merged with its challenger to become the Honourable East India company; what a surprise.

That is not how it works. The people will, and can, never stop buying the necessities of life. They just take their children out of school and send them to work to "make-ends-meet". The average citizen of many Asian countries earns a pretty shitty wage, but still keeps working--he lives in total poverty.

A pretty shitty wage by our standards, but better than the alternatives.

I object to children being coaxed into stealing so they can buy a product which is poison, all the while being told it is feel-good candy.

It's their bodies, their (or their parents') choice.

Like tax exemptions and lack of regulation--when the company was challenged, it merged with its challenger to become the Honourable East India company; what a surprise.

No, like trade monopolies.

A pretty shitty wage by our standards, but better than the alternatives.

It illustrates how little the people would be willing to work for if they had no choice. Companies would ban together and lower wages to hell.

It's their bodies, their (or their parents') choice.

The parents would obviously not know, and the children would not be told they are taking poison.

No, like trade monopolies.

Which would happen naturally without any regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(19th_century)

Most of the arguments here sort of depend on advertising and news agencies being amazingly honest without incentive.

It illustrates how little the people would be willing to work for if they had no choice. Companies would ban together and lower wages to hell.

And then new companies would appear and lure the workers to their companies with better wages.

Also, do you know why wages in developing countries are so much lower?

The parents would obviously not know, and the children would not be told they are taking poison.

Another subject for another thread, maybe?

Which would happen naturally without any regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(19th_century)

No, it wouldn't. The so-called "monopolies" only achieved their status by swamping all their rivals by providing better and cheaper products, leading their rivals to use the government to pass "antitrust" legislation, since they were too inefficient to compete on their own merits. This has been documented by, among others, Burton W. Folsom, Jr. (The Myth of the Robber Barons) and Dominick T. Armentano (Antitrust: The Case for Repeal and Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure).

Also, I recommend the following source: Murray N. Rothbard's For a New Liberty, an indispensable guide to anarcho-capitalism. You can read it in its entirety here (]http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf), in .pdf format, for free.

Do I expect it to convert you? No.

Do I expect you to finish it all in one night? No.

However, if nothing else, it will show you how ancaps think, and why they think the way they do. It will provide a good explanation, at least.

And then new companies would appear and lure the workers to their companies with better wages.

And the massive companies would just send a jet to bomb the industries of the smaller companies.

Also, do you know why wages in developing countries are so much lower?

Yes; I am just pointing-out that the people will keep working, even when their wages are outrageously low.

Another subject for another thread, maybe?

Now really, since this thread is about how anarchism does not insure public safety.



No, it wouldn't. The so-called "monopolies" only achieved their status by swamping all their rivals by providing better and cheaper products, leading their rivals to use the government to pass "antitrust" legislation, since they were too inefficient to compete on their own merits. This has been documented by, among others, Burton W. Folsom, Jr. (The Myth of the Robber Barons) and Dominick T. Armentano (Antitrust: The Case for Repeal and Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure).

Also, I recommend the following source: Murray N. Rothbard's For a New Liberty, an indispensable guide to anarcho-capitalism. You can read it in its entirety here (]http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf), in .pdf format, for free.

Do I expect it to convert you? No.

Do I expect you to finish it all in one night? No.

However, if nothing else, it will show you how ancaps think, and why they think the way they do. It will provide a good explanation, at least.

I will take a look. I still strongly urge to read the book that inspired this site.

And the massive companies would just send a jet to bomb the industries of the smaller companies.

I highly doubt it.

Yes; I am just pointing-out that the people will keep working, even when their wages are outrageously low.

And?

Now really, since this thread is about how anarchism does not insure public safety.

Fair enough, but I disagree.

I will take a look. I still strongly urge to read the book that inspired this site.

I will.

I highly doubt it.

Why? When a company can buy its own army you do not think it will use it to wipe-out competition?

And?
You said, "If they paid their workers wages too low, the workers would quit." Poverty level is too low for me, but I would not quit.

Fair enough, but I disagree.

A man kidnaps, rapes, then kills a women. Who will ever find that man and prevent him from future crimes?


I will.

Very good, Sir.

I highly doubt it.


monopoly companies buy the smaller companies and absorb them?

monopoly companies secure all the supply needed for production, preventing smaller companies from producing so they fail?

monopoly companies use their financial muscle and outspend their competitors on marketing, so they don't penetrate the market and fail?

All this already happens WITH governments around..... So straight up corporate espionage to bombing the competition would only be more likely without them.

I believe laws cannot be properly enforced without a government; who disagrees?

Gravity needs no government . . .

The monopoly on violence in a region.

Can I sig that?
That's beautiful.

Do you mean a government or a state?

Because I don't believe a state of anarchism and the existence of laws are mutually exclusive.

I may elaborate further. Maybe. But, having argued this very topic dozens of times with friends over MSN, I have realized the futility of it. Either you believe anarchy is workable or you do not; it is almost impossible to change a person's view on the subject either way. Many, present company included, have made the effort, with no results.

Either you believe anarchy is workable - or you don't.

But - you're not going to explain what it is, or how it works?

It certainly IS impossible to change minds - if you never try.

Self governance does not equate to "government". There are no structured "laws" in an anarchist society.

By your definition of 'anarchy'.

Even if only a small percentage of consumers died, you can bet that company's rivals would milk that fact for all it's worth and lure customers away..

It would have to be PROVED that the deaths were connected to your product/service.

You really think people would be dumb to keep buying something that dangerous? You have an even lower opinion of the average person than I do.

People have - the other poster was referring to a matter of historic record.

What's stopping anyone else from entering the field and releasing an alternative product?

Monopolies? Lack of regulation? Force?

In which environment - your poorly-defined anarchy? Or the real world?

Either you believe anarchy is workable - or you don't.

Correct.

But - you're not going to explain what it is, or how it works?

I'll explain anarchy as I see it. A stateless (state being defined as a coercive territorial monopoly on jurisdiction) society based on voluntary interaction.

It certainly IS impossible to change minds - if you never try.

Even if you try, it's usually impossible. The best you can do is show the other person how and why you hold the views that you do.

It would have to be PROVED that the deaths were connected to your product/service.

Of course, but it wouldn't be impossible.

Monopolies? Lack of regulation? Force?

Just because there is not a monopolistic government doesn't mean there are no laws.

In which environment - your poorly-defined anarchy? Or the real world?

The former.

Without government, there would be no laws to enforce?

actually without a government, the laws become whatever the strongest says it is. and it's the strongest that enforce it.

"Might makes Right."

And? There will always be competition. Always. Unless they kill everyone else.

That doesn't even pretend to be true, unfortunately.

The simple example of polarised wealth immediately shows that your assertion isn't true. If you've one company that holds all the (effective) wealth, and provides the one essential resource - there will be no competition.

No one else can hold the wealth, no one else can hold the resource. No competition.

A pretty shitty wage by our standards, but better than the alternatives.


Like... a decent wage?

How is a 'pretty shitt wage' better than 'a decent wage'?

Just because there is not a monopolistic government doesn't mean there are no laws.

But who is enforcing the laws?

Anyway, I have another question: According to a lot of your type, slavery never needed government interference because machines would eventually make slaves obsolete; should we have just stood by and let slavery continue until machines did this?

By-the-way, there are a lot of jobs that humans still perform, and, thus, slaves could do.

Like... a decent wage?

How is a 'pretty shitt wage' better than 'a decent wage'?

No, like living on the street or being forced into prostitution - which is, sadly, the reality faced by many people in the Third World, as we all well know.

I'll explain anarchy as I see it. A stateless (state being defined as a coercive territorial monopoly on jurisdiction) society based on voluntary interaction.


Okay - that's anarchy as you see it.

However, if you killed every representative of government, every institute of power, every recorder of laws, every adviser, messenger and keeper of knowledge... of your previous order - that would also be anarchy.

It could still have a 'state', it could lack 'voluntary' interaction - but it would be anarchy.



Even if you try, it's usually impossible. The best you can do is show the other person how and why you hold the views that you do.

Which you have been largely choosing not to do, by the way.

No, like living on the street or being forced into prostitution - which is, sadly, the reality faced by many people in the Third World, as we all well know.

How would dismantling governments prevent this?

But who is enforcing the laws?

Private law enforcement agencies.

Anyway, I have another question: According to a lot of your type, slavery never needed government interference because machines would eventually make slaves obsolete; should we have just stood by and let slavery continue until machines did this?

Slavery should never be allowed ever, period. I believe in the absolute supremacy of private property rights, especially self-ownership. Only you can own yourself, no one else could.

By-the-way, there are a lot of jobs that humans still perform, and, thus, slaves could do.

Unfortunately. Slavery in some form will always exist, no matter how far humans "advance" as a species.

Which you have been largely choosing not to do, by the way.

I provided a link to Rothbard's book earlier. He explains it a million times better than I could ever hope to.

Of course, but it wouldn't be impossible.


It would be impossible if the people who have the mandate to prove complicity - are beholden to the criminal elements.

Look at the stereotypical 'bought cop'.


Just because there is not a monopolistic government doesn't mean there are no laws.


You keep saying things like that - but you flee when cornered on it.

Who maintains and enforces the law, in the absence of government?

(Note: monopolistic is not necessary).


The former.

In your imagined' anarchy'?

Who would stop monopolies? Who would stop force?

No, like living on the street or being forced into prostitution - which is, sadly, the reality faced by many people in the Third World, as we all well know.

But that's not ALL the alternatives, now, is it.

Private law enforcement agencies.


Who granted a mandate to these private agencies? Who justifies their actions? Who do they answer to?

How do they enforce?


Slavery should never be allowed ever, period. I believe in the absolute supremacy of private property rights, especially self-ownership. Only you can own yourself, no one else could.


I agree that there should be no slavery. I agree with personal sovereignty.

Those are high among the reasons I am not an anarchist.

Private law enforcement agencies.

Which would probably accept bribes from corporations.

Slavery should never be allowed ever, period. I believe in the absolute supremacy of private property rights, especially self-ownership. Only you can own yourself, no one else could.

Who is to stop a company from kidnapping persons and using them as slaves to produce cheaper goods? The moral discrimination of the consumer? :tongue:

Unfortunately. Slavery in some form will always exist, no matter how far humans "advance" as a species.

Some forms are far worse than others. Nixon abolished the draft.

I provided a link to Rothbard's book earlier. He explains it a million times better than I could ever hope to.

I don't want links to books. The chances are you're linking to books I read before you were even born (yes - jumping to conclusions - but a large number of NS posters are at least two decades younger than me... hence 'chances are').

I want YOUR explanation.

Who granted a mandate to these private agencies? Who justifies their actions? Who do they answer to?

How do they enforce?

They enforce whichever laws bring-in the most money.

They enforce whichever laws bring-in the most money.

They are also likely to rapidly become the only armed element of the 'society'.

Power, the ability to enforce their will, and no one to watch the watchmen.

Who granted a mandate to these private agencies? Who justifies their actions? Who do they answer to?

How do they enforce?

You give them money, and in return they make sure your kneecaps don't suddenly get broken when you trip and fall down the stairs. It's simple.

They are also likely to rapidly become the only armed element of the 'society'.

Not necessarily: Jennifer Government predicts a mighty powerful NRA.

You give them money, and in return they make sure your kneecaps don't suddenly get broken when you trip and fall down the stairs. It's simple.

Oh, you and your appealing to historical trends...

Not necessarily: Jennifer Government predicts a mighty powerful NRA.

Yes. In the US, force is already largely polarised into the hands of people you wouldn't necessarily trust with a pen...

actually without a government, the laws become whatever the strongest says it is. and it's the strongest that enforce it.

"Might makes Right."
In other words, "The Law of the Jungle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_the_Jungle)", where everyone gets to make up shit.

Do you mean a government or a state?

this conversation seems several levels below dealing with that sort of question

this conversation seems several levels below dealing with that sort of question

Regardless, I've never really seen a particularly compelling or meaningful distinction.

Oh, you and your appealing to historical trends...

I'm not even thinking about the past, I'm just thinking about what I would do.*

*Not that I would actually do it. Somewhere along the line I developed an intense sense of morality, which wouldn't be a problem except I already thought like an absolute bastard.

Regardless, I've never really seen a particularly compelling or meaningful distinction.
I think we can meaningfully separate the two if we distinguish between government and the apparatus of the state, i.e., a civil service. Then, we can conceive of a state without a government; an autocratic ruler, for example. They may have a bureaucracy that deals with the enforcement of the autocrat's decrees, but I wouldn't call this government.

I think we can meaningfully separate the two if we distinguish between government and the apparatus of the state, i.e., a civil service. Then, we can conceive of a state without a government; an autocratic ruler, for example. They may have a bureaucracy that deals with the enforcement of the autocrat's decrees, but I wouldn't call this government.

Would the autocrat himself not then be the government, though?

I think we can meaningfully separate the two if we distinguish between government and the apparatus of the state, i.e., a civil service. Then, we can conceive of a state without a government; an autocratic ruler, for example. They may have a bureaucracy that deals with the enforcement of the autocrat's decrees, but I wouldn't call this government.

we could also do it the other direction entirely, where the state is one particular arrangement of government, but there are others as well.

basically, the terminology is rather muddled.

Would the autocrat himself not then be the government, though?
You could define it as such, but I'd posit that a government is a body of people who govern, not a singular person.

Though this is my own (rather arbitrary) definition.

basically, the terminology is rather muddled.
Oh, indeed.

I think my separation helps in thinking about modern-day politics (the difference between parliament, government, and the head of state, etc.), however.

Though there's undoubtedly a hole in the theory.

I think we can meaningfully separate the two if we distinguish between government and the apparatus of the state, i.e., a civil service. Then, we can conceive of a state without a government; an autocratic ruler, for example. They may have a bureaucracy that deals with the enforcement of the autocrat's decrees, but I wouldn't call this government.

Ok, let me put it this way. What is it that the state inherently has, but the government does not inherently have, that anarchists object to?

Ok, let me put it this way. What is it that the state inherently has, but the government does not inherently have, that anarchists object to?
Illegitimate hierarchy.

In the sense that, I feel that the State is an institution that is above people, but government (or governance) is not necessarily so.

You could define it as such, but I'd posit that a government is a body of people who govern, not a singular person.

I'd say that I disagree. If you have someone like Stalin, who theoretically 'rules' with an iron fist - but, actually, has a machinery that he rules through - I'd say the single person isn't a government then - because his machinery is the government, and he's just it's head.

But - if you have a chief ordering every other prole around, directly, I'd say that the chief could be strongly argued as 'the government'.

Of course - in reality - you'd probably rarely (if ever) get a one person government, because the mechanism would tend towards 'layers' of 'government', even in tyranny.

Ok, let me put it this way. What is it that the state inherently has, but the government does not inherently have, that anarchists object to?

Borders?

Illegitimate hierarchy.

Why must a state have illegitimate hierarchy?

Borders?

Ok, I would understand that in the context of pushing for 'world socialism', but it's a rather redundant complaint in pushing for your particular country to adopt communism without expecting immediate adoption by all other countries.

Why must a state have illegitimate hierarchy?
Because a State is an institution above (the) people. It rules on behalf of people (legitimately or not); takes power away from, and exerts power on, them.

Whereas, with some definitions of government/governance certain anarchists use, some forms of it do not do these things.

Because a State is an institution above (the) people. It rules on behalf of people (legitimately or not); takes power away from, and exerts power on, them.


But... why is that inherently illegitimate hierarchy?

Because a State is an institution above (the) people. It rules on behalf of people (legitimately or not); takes power away from, and exerts power on, them.


I just don't see that as inherent to the definition.

But... why is that inherently illegitimate hierarchy?
Go read Proudhon, Kropotkin, et al.

But in my, condensed, view, it comes down to a number of things; poor/non-existent representation of peoples, advancement of non-epistemic authority, promotion of a minority of interests, unaccountability, and my rejection of social contract theory (among other issues).



I just don't see that as inherent to the definition.
Well... I do.

To put it in blunt terminology, the State and the People are not the same thing; the former rules over the latter, though it is comprised of some of the People.

To put it in blunt terminology, the State and the People are not the same thing; the former rules over the latter, though it is comprised of some of the People.

I don't see why the state can't be comprised of 'all of the people'.

Also, I believe that calling something categorically illegitimate is meaningless.

I don't see why the state can't be comprised of 'all of the people'.
Again we're straying into the muddled world of definitions. I just conceive of the State in the way I've described it above, I'm afraid, but I can happily use an alternative definition.

If we organised a non-hierarchical, truly representative, accountable, egalitarian, sustainable, governing institution that comprised of 'all of the people', I wouldn't go into a sulk simply because you called it a 'State'.

Also, I believe that calling something categorically illegitimate is meaningless.
What of something like rape?

It seems like, by definition, it is illegitimate.

Again we're straying into the muddled world of definitions. I just conceive of the State in the way I've described it above, I'm afraid, but I can happily use an alternative definition.

If we organised a non-hierarchical, truly representative, accountable, egalitarian, sustainable, governing institution that comprised of 'all of the people', I wouldn't go into a sulk simply because you called it a 'State'.


Don't you think your cause would benefit from using slogans which aren't so ambiguous, like 'power to all people, not to a few", rather than "smash the state"?


What of something like rape?

It seems like, by definition, it is illegitimate.

By definition? If you define non-consensual as illegitimate, perhaps. But that's the thing, in the absence of a greater universal set of standards dictating what is and isn't categorically legitimate, there is no reason to call it either legitimate or illegitimate. In other words, it suffers from the same problems as objective morality.

Again we're straying into the muddled world of definitions. I just conceive of the State in the way I've described it above, I'm afraid, but I can happily use an alternative definition.


You don't see this as a problem?

Here's an assumption and here's the problem ,and here's what I think we should... what? You don't accept my esoteric assumption?

If you're talking to someone who considers their government to be fairly representational, and that a state consists of the people in it - you've got absolutely no way to talk to them.

Go read Proudhon, Kropotkin, et al.


Ack. Another person telling me which books they think I should read...


But in my, condensed, view, it comes down to a number of things; poor/non-existent representation of peoples, advancement of non-epistemic authority, promotion of a minority of interests, unaccountability, and my rejection of social contract theory (among other issues).


You won't get any argument from me on the quality of representation. What we call representative democracies aren't very representative at all.

On the other hand - people are stupid. Being represented by the majority isn't necessarily a good thing.

Promotion of a minority of intersts - again, two-edged sword. The idea of a system that lets ideas 'bubble-up' for a while before they break isn't necessarily bad - so long as there's also a mechanism that allows the system to also spring into action.

A lack of accountability... I'm not sure. Most regimes have SOME form of accountability. Perhaps you mean something more immediate?

I'm not sure I even want to touch 'social contract theory'.

Don't you think your cause would benefit from using slogans which aren't so ambiguous, like 'power to all people, not to a few", rather than "smash the state"?
I don't think anarchist sloganeering is limited to 'smash the state':

Whoever puts his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant. I declare him my enemy.
- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing this minute.
- Buenaventura Durutti

Whoever denies authority and fights against it is an anarchist.
- Sebastien Faure

The very notion of the domination of nature by man stems from the very real domination of human by human.
- Murray Bookchin

And, to appropriate Shelly:

The earth's great age begins anew,
The golden years return.
The earth doth like a snake renew
Her winter weeds outworn;
Heaven smiles, and faiths and empires gleam
Like wrecks in a dissolving dream.

By definition? If you define non-consensual as illegitimate, perhaps. But that's the thing, in the absence of a greater universal set of standards dictating what is and isn't categorically legitimate, there is no reason to call it either legitimate or illegitimate. In other words, it suffers from the same problems as objective morality.
An interesting discussion for another time.

laws can be obeyed without enforcement. this is called cultural norms.
of course there are always imperfect exceptions. its a statistical thing.
we live in a statistical universe.

laws can be obeyed without enforcement. this is called cultural norms.
of course there are always imperfect exceptions. its a statistical thing.
we live in a statistical universe.

No. You are speaking of custom, not law. Law, without enforcement thereof, is not law at all, but only suggestion.

You don't see this as a problem?

Here's an assumption and here's the problem ,and here's what I think we should... what? You don't accept my esoteric assumption?

If you're talking to someone who considers their government to be fairly representational, and that a state consists of the people in it - you've got absolutely no way to talk to them.

the word 'state' isn't really integral to the argument though. the structure is, and the structure is just a fact of the world.

this conversation seems several levels below dealing with that sort of questionPerhaps, but it would be an easy way of answering the question.

Regardless, I've never really seen a particularly compelling or meaningful distinction.A state is a decision-making body with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
A government is a decision-making body.

Ok, let me put it this way. What is it that the state inherently has, but the government does not inherently have, that anarchists object to?A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

No. You are speaking of custom, not law. Law, without enforcement thereof, is not law at all, but only suggestion.

But then arn't customs enforced by the threat of some negative reaction to you by the populace if it is disobayed, and those not enforced by this reaction become outdated customs. The correct wearing of a hat, or the usage of honorifics. In the same way perhaps laws do not cease to be laws when they are not enforced, or followed, they just cease to be relevant.

There are no doubt hundreds of laws and ordinances on the books right now, especially in nations without a constitution (like the UK) which are either outdated, unpopular (or unneccessery) or just unenforcable. Do they cease to be laws because they are not followed ?

Also, as to the description of a country in which laws are no longer followed as "lawless" or "outside the rule of law" I would say that was inexactitude in the English language rather than a proof of anything, the laws are not gone [the temptation to say 'they are just sleeping' is overwhelming but ridiculous].

Why do we need government food & drug regulation? Couldn't a private company test and rate such things? We have the UL test and rate electrical appliances and such, and they are a highly-respected private company. Couldn't that model work in other fields? It's not like the FDA has a stellar track record and no allegations of misconduct, and a private company would be open to lawsuit should they fail to follow proper testing procedures.
Well, I can sue someone if I get poisoned? That's a relief.