Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think that follows. Even if we assume the most individualistic of anarchist definitions (I think I'm a little more socialist than Bardock, personally), there is no reason to think that the person's life is in any immediate danger.
If everyone has to pay to be safe the moment someone finds out you can't pay or forgot to pay you're in immense danger. The population not only is less safe, they'll end up paying more money for protection they don't need.
Originally posted by inimalist
The idea is, people aren't naturally evil.
I disagree completely.
Originally posted by inimalist
besides, you are also assuming a tax like payment system. A pay per use system would be open to anyone on an optional basis. Call 9-11 and figure out a way to provide payment after, rather than be forced at gunpoint to provide a percent of your paycheck regardless.
So the system is designed only to benefit those who have money to pay for protection? That's completely sick, at least the one in place offers some protection to everyone.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but I talk about a metaphorical gun, you apparently about the caliber.
As in the ability to destroy someone or control through fear? Having a weapon that can level a city block seems capable of being a very much literal and metaphorical gun.
Originally posted by inimalist
might makes right?
Nothing else does is a totally free system.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If everyone has to pay to be safe the moment someone finds out you can't pay or forgot to pay you're in immense danger. The population not only is less safe, they'll end up paying more money for protection they don't need.
That's a ridiculous assumption for...so many reasons it's mind blowing.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If everyone has to pay to be safe the moment someone finds out you can't pay or forgot to pay you're in immense danger. The population not only is less safe, they'll end up paying more money for protection they don't need.I disagree completely.
fair enough
so, without knowing the police were around, you would take things that other people worked hard for?
I feel altruism is a biological trait. We are good because it benefits ourselves to be good. Killing and maiming my neighbour is not in my best interests, especially in a community based system.
What prevents someone from stockpiling guns and taking over? ok, fine, I give you that is a weakness of anarchist theory. Peacful communities cannot compete with militiristic ones. Top down systems will always be able to steal more resources from their people and arm its citizens, potentially against their will, to fight against people. Individuals will always be able to get guns and intimidate eachother. Why should we but into a system that is the consequence of this?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the system is designed only to benefit those who have money to pay for protection? That's completely sick, at least the one in place offers some protection to everyone.
no, the system is designed in a way that it is able to fun itself. Nowhere does it say those who cannot pay cannot get help, there is nothing preventing charity funds for protection etc.
also, like I said, I'm probably a little more socialist on this one. I think some degree of social responsibility is inherent in anarchist societies, whereby protection and health, while likely being commodified, are still provided to the community.
finally, your argument is rendered moot if people in society are able to create enough personal wealth to afford proper protection. Anarchists, at least those who are capitalists also (which, many anarchists believe, strangely, is mutually exclusive from anarchy), feel the free market, and not modern corporate socialism, will create competition that drives down prices, and economic prosperity which drives up personal wealth.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThe thing is you assume that what stops people in our society from buying very big guns is the government and it's control. I, on the other hand, view the government just as a way of acquiring one more, very powerful, weapon.
Most people that buy powerful weapons aren't nearly that rational.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nothing else does is a totally free system.
ummm, freedom? personal liberty? free choice and expression?
look, you are right, murderers and those willing to do brutal and immoral things will probably always be able to subjugate those who just want to live together in peace, you can make a good psychological argument for people either way, though I largely think the former is the minority and the later the majority.
I think we should hold ourselves to higher standards... And certainly would want to base the philosophy behind a political system on such
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enoughso, without knowing the police were around, you would take things that other people worked hard for?
Yes. If I felt there was little risk in theft or violence I would steal and I would hit people when they pissed me off, just like most people do when they see society fall apart around them. Spontaneous looting happens for a reason, IMO. The current systems is high risk, low return for violating someone else's morals unless you're very good at what you do.
Originally posted by inimalist
I feel altruism is a biological
At a certain level, I'm willing to agree. But I don't think that most people (or at least enough people) would inconvenience themselves to help someone else. I might pull a stranger out of a well but I wouldn't put together a fund to save everyone who was trapped somewhere.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, the system is designed in a way that it is able to fun itself. Nowhere does it say those who cannot pay cannot get help, there is nothing preventing charity funds for protection etc.
So the wealthy would pay money to protect the poor? I suppose they'll be paying to uplift the disenfranchised so that they have equal opportunity to advance in society, too?
Originally posted by inimalist
also, like I said, I'm probably a little more socialist on this one. I think some degree of social responsibility is inherent in anarchist societies, whereby protection and health, while likely being commodified, are still provided to the community.
I don't particularly like systems where you have to start by assuming people will be responsible all on their own.
Originally posted by inimalist
finally, your argument is rendered moot if people in society are able to create enough personal wealth to afford proper protection.
If.
Originally posted by inimalist
Anarchists, at least those who are capitalists also (which, many anarchists believe, strangely, is mutually exclusive from anarchy), feel the free market, and not modern corporate socialism, will create competition that drives down prices, and economic prosperity which drives up personal wealth.
Not on a large scale, at least not without an organization that can prevent monopolies. Anarchy and miniarchy don't allow for that much power to belong to any group.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The thing is you assume that what stops people in our society from buying very big guns is the government and it's control. I, on the other hand, view the government just as a way of acquiring one more, very powerful, weapon.
So why don't you have big guns?
Originally posted by inimalist
ummm, freedom? personal liberty? free choice and expression?
Those don't make you right. Not when I can splatter your brain across the wall because I don't like the way you mixed colors in that most recent painting.
Originally posted by inimalist
look, you are right, murderers and those willing to do brutal and immoral things will probably always be able to subjugate those who just want to live together in peace, you can make a good psychological argument for people either way, though I largely think the former is the minority and the later the majority.
Thus making anarchy a good system?
Numbers matter less and less as human ability to kill one another increases. Ten thousand good people don't feel a need for weapons, a handful of terrorists do. Unless those ten thousand people aren't assuming a goodness inherent to the human condition they those.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think we should hold ourselves to higher standards... And certainly would want to base the philosophy behind a political system on such
I agree, I just don't think that holding one's self to high standards should come at the price of waiting to be killed.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those don't make you right. Not when I can splatter your brain across the wall because I don't like the way you mixed colors in that most recent painting.
The same that stops you from doing it now would stop you in an anarchist system
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Numbers matter less and less as human ability to kill one another increases. Ten thousand good people don't feel a need for weapons, a handful of terrorists do. Unless those ten thousand people aren't assuming a goodness inherent to the human condition they those.
Yeah..those terrorists....they live in countries with governments, right? Just checkin'
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. If I felt there was little risk in theft or violence I would steal and I would hit people when they pissed me off, just like most people do when they see society fall apart around them. Spontaneous looting happens for a reason, IMO. The current systems is high risk, low return for violating someone else's morals unless you're very good at what you do.