[tom ploszaj]

www.anarchyinyourhead.com
A member of the Free State Project who migrated to New Hampshire has started sharing his cartoons on line. Check them out especialy his "easter eggs". If you like his art send him some kudos and "Digg" his posts. Dale also started a online store for his art. He will be at PorcFest 2008
www.anarchyinyourhead.com

[BaalChatzaf]

tom ploszaj, on Mar 17 2008, 11:38 PM, said:

www.anarchyinyourhead.com
A member of the Free State Project who migrated to New Hampshire has started sharing his cartoons on line. Check them out especialy his "easter eggs". If you like his art send him some kudos and "Digg" his posts. Dale also started a online store for his art. He will be at PorcFest 2008
www.anarchyinyourhead.com

A bit heavy handed, but not all that bad. It needs some subtlety to be good satire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mindy]

BaalChatzaf, on Oct 2 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

tom ploszaj, on Mar 17 2008, 11:38 PM, said:

www.anarchyinyourhead.com
A member of the Free State Project who migrated to New Hampshire has started sharing his cartoons on line. Check them out especialy his "easter eggs". If you like his art send him some kudos and "Digg" his posts. Dale also started a online store for his art. He will be at PorcFest 2008
www.anarchyinyourhead.com

A bit heavy handed, but not all that bad. It needs some subtlety to be good satire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me.

= Mindy

[Chris Baker]

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me.

How exactly does it fail?

[Mindy]

Chris Baker, on Oct 2 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me.

How exactly does it fail?

Uhhh, there is no law, no law-enforcement, no rules against the initiation of force...that do?
= Mindy

[Chris Baker]

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

Uhhh, there is no law, no law-enforcement, no rules against the initiation of force...that do?

So, do you think that people will not retaliate against the initiation of force? There may be no rules, but there will be retaliation.

[Brant Gaede]

Chris Baker, on Oct 2 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

Uhhh, there is no law, no law-enforcement, no rules against the initiation of force...that do?

So, do you think that people will not retaliate against the initiation of force? There may be no rules, but there will be retaliation.

Like in the movie Mystic River?

--Brant

[Selene]

Folks:

I spent quite a few years in the anarcho-capitalist movement. Jerome Tucille, et. al.

One of the major issues we attempted to resolve was just this question. Private protection organizations were explored ad naseum [not meant to be pejorative] and it is a difficult issue to resolve.

Read Kropotkin and other non left wing anarchists. We had anarchist conferences at Columbia University and would argue this point until we all were exhausted and crashed on the floor.

I believe it is achievable, not dissimilar to the paradigms that were established out west before "law and order" was established.

Any thoughts?

Adam

[Michael E. Marotta]

Over on Rebirth of Reason, I have tons of material on real world, actual examples of market entities providing defense and adjudication. This is the world I work in. My citations are not to medieval Iceland or Prince Kropotkin or from the Von Rothbard Society or from the Coriolanus Institute but from the real world we live in according to (among others) the US Department of Justice which funds studies of these markets.

Selene and Tucille (and Bidinotto versus Long) debated the what-ifs to exhaustion because they lacked facts. They were religionists not entrepreneurs, theologians not accountants. I have folders and folders full of facts. Yet, few are ever persuaded. Those who are already anarchists click the approval button and sometimes a conservative or traditionalist will argue some theoretical point. No one can assail my facts. (Look in the Dissent Forum on http://rebirthofreason.com for "Police Forces and Courts of Law" and for "A World Without Government."

Let me ask the governmentalists a basic question, not answered on RoR:
Ford Motor Company and General Motors have been neighbors and competitors for 100 years. Why have the private guards of one never opened fire on the other? The governmentalists claim that it is because the State exerts a monopoly on force to keep them in line. If that is the case, then why were there ever warring gangs in New York? The Five Points gangs of the 1820s lasted over 100 years -- Al Capone was a later member. The Cosa Nostra contrinued that. In our generation, we had the Bloods and Crips and now M13, according the FBI over 30,000 gangs. Where is that suppressing monopoly on force?

[BaalChatzaf]

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me.

= Mindy

I was talking about satirical style. You are bringing up political substance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mindy]

Selene, on Oct 2 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Folks:

I spent quite a few years in the anarcho-capitalist movement. Jerome Tucille, et. al.

One of the major issues we attempted to resolve was just this question. Private protection organizations were explored ad naseum [not meant to be pejorative] and it is a difficult issue to resolve.

Read Kropotkin and other non left wing anarchists. We had anarchist conferences at Columbia University and would argue this point until we all were exhausted and crashed on the floor.

I believe it is achievable, not dissimilar to the paradigms that were established out west before "law and order" was established.

Any thoughts?

Adam

Might doesn't make right. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Whoever can pay more mercenaries can rape and pillage anyone else, mercenary "police" will believe whoever pays them to. CIVILIZATION will not survive.
The lawlessness of the wild west seems romantic to you?
Mindy

This post has been edited by Mindy: 02 October 2008 - 07:34 PM

[Selene]

Michael E. Marotta, on Oct 2 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

Over on Rebirth of Reason, I have tons of material on real world, actual examples of market entities providing defense and adjudication. This is the world I work in. My citations are not to medieval Iceland or Prince Kropotkin or from the Von Rothbard Society or from the Coriolanus Institute but from the real world we live in according to (among others) the US Department of Justice which funds studies of these markets.

Selene and Tucille (and Bidinotto versus Long) debated the what-ifs to exhaustion because they lacked facts. They were religionists not entrepreneurs, theologians not accountants. I have folders and folders full of facts. Yet, few are ever persuaded. Those who are already anarchists click the approval button and sometimes a conservative or traditionalist will argue some theoretical point. No one can assail my facts. (Look in the Dissent Forum on http://rebirthofreason.com for "Police Forces and Courts of Law" and for "A World Without Government."

Let me ask the governmentalists a basic question, not answered on RoR:
Ford Motor Company and General Motors have been neighbors and competitors for 100 years. Why have the private guards of one never opened fire on the other? The governmentalists claim that it is because the State exerts a monopoly on force to keep them in line. If that is the case, then why were there ever warring gangs in New York? The Five Points gangs of the 1820s lasted over 100 years -- Al Capone was a later member. The Cosa Nostra contrinued that. In our generation, we had the Bloods and Crips and now M13, according the FBI over 30,000 gangs. Where is that suppressing monopoly on force?

Excuse me sir, you do not know me so do not classify me because I mentioned Jerome who was a friend. I expect an apology, but I doubt that you have the balls to give one.

Adam

[Selene]

Sir:

In fact, upon information and belief, you are full of something and I doubt it is "facts". Can you spell effete or condescending? I can.
What an incredibly pompous post, but then again you do have such "purty" hair.

Adam

[Ted Keer]

Michael E. Marotta, on Oct 2 2008, 09:12 PM, said:

Over on Rebirth of Reason, I have tons of material on real world, actual examples of market entities providing defense and adjudication.

Yes, of course these private entities work well in the context of a functioning system where one can resort to the police and the courts if they don't give satisfaction.

As for M13 and Al Capone, do you think they got their start because of prohibition or because the were starting their own friendly local private protection agency? Under a minarchy, there is no prohibition, and no opposition to legitimate private security firms or arbitration.

As for the "real world facts" you have provided over at RoR, well, you have also gotten a lot of real world refutations of your nonsense as well. So, not liking the judgment you've received, you skip jurisdiction, and bring your quack nostrums here to peddle?

Libert Magazine is the house organ of the daddy haters, the juveniles who have never gotten over their dislike of authority as such. They proved their true colors, with their Schadenfreude almost celebration of 9/11, which they saw as us getting what we deserved. That rag is not pro-liberty. It is simply anti-government, no matter how legitimate.

[Chris Baker]

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Might doesn't make right. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Whoever can pay more mercenaries can rape and pillage anyone else, mercenary "police" will believe whoever pays them to. CIVILIZATION will not survive.
The lawlessness of the wild west seems romantic to you?
Mindy

This is exactly the condition that we have with governments. Every government in history has been lawless.

You ask for a government that solely protects the rights of individuals, a government that only uses force in retaliation. You are asking for something that has never existed.

[Mindy]

Chris Baker, on Oct 3 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Might doesn't make right. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Whoever can pay more mercenaries can rape and pillage anyone else, mercenary "police" will believe whoever pays them to. CIVILIZATION will not survive.
The lawlessness of the wild west seems romantic to you?
Mindy

This is exactly the condition that we have with governments. Every government in history has been lawless.

You ask for a government that solely protects the rights of individuals, a government that only uses force in retaliation. You are asking for something that has never existed.

You asked a specific question, I answered it. But you don't admit the validity of the response, or else say why it isn't a satisfactory answer...what's the deal?
= Mindy

[Brant Gaede]

Michael E. Marotta, on Oct 2 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

Over on Rebirth of Reason, I have tons of material on real world, actual examples of market entities providing defense and adjudication. This is the world I work in. My citations are not to medieval Iceland or Prince Kropotkin or from the Von Rothbard Society or from the Coriolanus Institute but from the real world we live in according to (among others) the US Department of Justice which funds studies of these markets.

Selene and Tucille (and Bidinotto versus Long) debated the what-ifs to exhaustion because they lacked facts. They were religionists not entrepreneurs, theologians not accountants. I have folders and folders full of facts. Yet, few are ever persuaded. Those who are already anarchists click the approval button and sometimes a conservative or traditionalist will argue some theoretical point. No one can assail my facts. (Look in the Dissent Forum on http://rebirthofreason.com for "Police Forces and Courts of Law" and for "A World Without Government."

Let me ask the governmentalists a basic question, not answered on RoR:
Ford Motor Company and General Motors have been neighbors and competitors for 100 years. Why have the private guards of one never opened fire on the other? The governmentalists claim that it is because the State exerts a monopoly on force to keep them in line. If that is the case, then why were there ever warring gangs in New York? The Five Points gangs of the 1820s lasted over 100 years -- Al Capone was a later member. The Cosa Nostra contrinued that. In our generation, we had the Bloods and Crips and now M13, according the FBI over 30,000 gangs. Where is that suppressing monopoly on force?

There is nothing "basic" about your question. Your "facts" are not an argument. You generously combine arguments from authority with arguments to the man. ("You are wholly ignorant.") You try to have your argument while denigrating those who argue because they argue with you. Some of your "facts" are facts and interesting. You are obviously an expert in at least two areas. I respect that. That's all. Consider that you too are a "governmentalist" just like all anarchists. You want men governed after all, just by your lights. An anarchist society is a governed society or it wouldn't exist. A true anarchist is a banished tribal member and he is alone.

--Brant

This post has been edited by Brant Gaede: 03 October 2008 - 02:28 AM

[Chris Baker]

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

You asked a specific question, I answered it. But you don't admit the validity of the response, or else say why it isn't a satisfactory answer...what's the deal?
= Mindy

I don't think your response is valid. It is certainly an argument I have heard before.

I think that both of us want to live in a free society--one in which people are free to do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. My hope is that such beliefs will eventually become universally accepted, just as 2+2=4 is universally accepted. When people can all agree on rights, the formality of a "government" will not be necessary. I also realize that this type of society has also never existed.

So, how do we get there from here? My guess is that it will happen when people get into space. I don't think it will happen anywhere here on Earth. There are too many corrupt systems in place. People find it easier to drop out of them than to reform them.

I think that most human beings are incapable of establishing and maintaining a free society. There are basically three groups of people in the world--people who want to be told what to do, people who want to tell others what to do, and people who think. The third group is the only one that can establish and maintain a free society. If the thinkers separated themselves from the other two, the other two groups would annihilate themselves with nuclear weapons.

[BaalChatzaf]

Chris Baker, on Oct 3 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

This is exactly the condition that we have with governments. Every government in history has been lawless.

You ask for a government that solely protects the rights of individuals, a government that only uses force in retaliation. You are asking for something that has never existed.

The Nazi government was overloaded with laws and protocols. None of them just. Many governments are run on unjust laws, so they are not lawless. When government operation is determined more by written rules and established procedures (be they ever so unjust) that government is not lawless.

That being said one can ask if there have ever been any just ("good") governments. Answer: Never. In the ten thousand years since mankind has had governments, there has not been a single just government. Not one. Some have been worse then others but none of them have been good. So governments come in two flavors: bad and worse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mindy]

Chris Baker, on Oct 3 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Mindy, on Oct 2 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

You asked a specific question, I answered it. But you don't admit the validity of the response, or else say why it isn't a satisfactory answer...what's the deal?
= Mindy

I don't think your response is valid. It is certainly an argument I have heard before.

I think that both of us want to live in a free society--one in which people are free to do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. My hope is that such beliefs will eventually become universally accepted, just as 2+2=4 is universally accepted. When people can all agree on rights, the formality of a "government" will not be necessary. I also realize that this type of society has also never existed.

So, how do we get there from here? My guess is that it will happen when people get into space. I don't think it will happen anywhere here on Earth. There are too many corrupt systems in place. People find it easier to drop out of them than to reform them.

I think that most human beings are incapable of establishing and maintaining a free society. There are basically three groups of people in the world--people who want to be told what to do, people who want to tell others what to do, and people who think. The third group is the only one that can establish and maintain a free society. If the thinkers separated themselves from the other two, the other two groups would annihilate themselves with nuclear weapons.

Do you really believe a culture, however enlightened, can ensure constant good will in all individuals?
= Mindy