I'd like to point out that I didn't report Mairuzu or complain to anyone about him opening a thread with replies to my post. I have no problems with Mairuzu nor do I have problems with his posting style. It would probably be a safe bet to assume none of us reported him or cared too much about his posting style, as well.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
This is where you're confused. I'm not talking about the failures of statism leading to "anarchy", that is BAD anarchy.
It doesn't matter what you'd like to direct the attention towards: a system without agreements of behavior (aka, laws) leads to a select few doing whatever they want at the cost of others. You can argue that this happens in state-systems but it just is not the same as what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Anarchy is not without rules, its without RULERS.
Depends on which version of Anarchy you want to discuss.
In your use, I assume you want a system of voluntary associations. A town wants a police force so they make one and only those that want to police, police. And it is voluntary.
But I would just point you back to the problem with you system:
"1. You created laws that restricted freedoms/choices.
2. You established a police force to enforce #1."
So you don't solve anything and you are back to the thing you complain about.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
You and I, in the absense of government, are not going to strangle one another similar to the non belief in god. Its a principle that I'm sure we both agree with.
Yes, agreed fully. We're far more likely to argue about existentialism over a bowl than we are to strangle each other. 🙂
Originally posted by Mairuzu
What I'm talking about is a transition out of statism when civilization matures, which it eventually will as it did with getting rid of slavery, and not the being-abandoned-by-the-child-called-it-mother-known-as-the-state type of anarchy. You're referring to somalia from what it sounds like. We must be clear on what we are referring to.
I also agree that that type of utopia is a future goal/end result that all should desire. However, as in my conversation with Oliver North, I do not think it is possible without genetic changes in humans because we are just such pieces of crap as a species. 🙂
But, no, the absence of a state is the absence of a state. It does not matter if it happened overnight or gradually over time: I only wanted to point out what happens in the absence of a state.
In the system you describe, those have been tried, too. They always failed. Being a Mormon and a Mormon Historian, I can tell you that these voluntary associations always failed...even when faith was involved (a very strong motivator to keep people cooperating). It was the selfishness and individualism that always caused the downfall of these groups. A political scientist and anthropologist should take great interest in the early Mormon movement known as the United Order. IMO, it is the closest thing we have to the good kind of anarchy that you describe. It is also a lesson in why it will pretty much always fail.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'd argue otherwise. I've been robbed in my own house one block away from a police station, you can literally see it from my house. Its ridiculous. Not only do they kill many innocent people, if you've been paying attention to the news, but their presense doesnt hinder these crimes. When seconds count, cops are only minutes away. They enforce unjust laws. They are nothing but obedient lap dogs with your occasional "hero". Do you know that cops are not obligated by law to protect you? We can hire better, if you believe in the free market. UNder our control with our currency.
"I am safer with voluntarily hired police than I am taxed-hired police"
Hiring better vs. having a taxes-paid-for police force is barely different. In fact, there is no difference.
"I have this 6-inch, clear ruler for sale!"
"I have this half-foot, clear ruler for sale!"
It's the same thing.
The police person you hired? Yeah, that's a body guard. What gives that body guard the right to arrest the person that robbed you? Under your system, the only way to improve it, would be to have that hired-police officer living in your home to ensure you are protected. That's pretty much the only way to prevent that robbery. Another way is a stupid complicated surveillance system that is monitored by off-site hired-police.
If you wanted your hired police (which is not the same thing as voluntary police force, which we were talking about earlier), you'd have to have a social contract with those that lived around you in order for that hired police-person to have any authority: you, the people, would have to give that authority. Now were are back to another problem you have: they have authority because we allow it. You don't like that authority. So you are back to the same problems you decry. There is no solution other than people willingly behaving themselves in ways that everyone around them agrees is "accepted behavior." As has been pointed out regarding the United Order Mormons, that's impossible (they tried and failed over 200 times).
So you can either have laws the govern the actions of humans and a voluntary police force that enforce those laws, or laws that do not govern and no police force (regardless of whether or not they are paid for by taxes, hired by the people, or voluntary). You cannot have both like you're passing off in this conversation. You hate the authority system and want to buck it but you want an authority system with only a marginal difference. You want your cake and you want to eat it, too.
You have to question the premise of the propositions. When the us is continously killing children and elders, through forieng policy and domestic policy, the state is FAR from solving that. If you believe it is, it has fooled you greatly with its indoctrination for you to be dependent on it.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Isn't that just absurd? lol. They have no right, no authority and supporting it is in fact immoral. Its no different than supporting slavery on a moral standard. In fact, its more dangerous. The government itself was the one responsible for enforcing it on such a great scale due to assisting on capturing these slaves.
There are some things that the government does that I do not For example: interstate laws governing commerce. Most of those are good and keeps the states working together. Some are bad or overly regulate. As you can see, I find good in and bad in both. So I do not think everything the Federal Government does is bad but I do not think everything they do is good. I'm not quite like you in that I think almost everything the Federal Government does it bad. I'd put my ration at 60-40: 60% good and 40% bad. I'd wager your ratio is 95%-5%: 95% bad and 5% good. lol
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'm questioning your logic and the premise of your propsitions. The government gets away with what it deems as illegal and wrong. This false ethical system is a dangerous religion. The government, made up of people, disobey these laws.
Oh, okay, that makes more sense, now. We have a government that disobeys the same laws they are there to enforce/regulate such as "don't murder someone" but then we have drone strikes that kill tons of innocent people: murder 2 in most states if it were done by any citizen. Yes, I agree: that's crap and unfair. I also consider income taxes to be legalized robbery. I do not consent to have that money taken from me. It is taken from me at virtual gunpoint. I especially do not consent to income taxes because there are far better taxing systems out there that I would voluntarily participate in such as a comprehensive excise tax tax system with no income taxes. I am not given that choice. Therefore, it is legal robbery by the government. Just because it is legal does not mean it isn't robbery.
"...robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear."
In my case, income taxes are robbery, plain and simple.