Individual rights v. governent intervention

[Citizen]

SNIP I've traveled to some beautiful regions where, for all intents and purposes, there was no government. The people did seem to live in peace. But without much of the infrastructure I want.

See, folks. Because he wants infrastructure, the rest of mankind has to suffer untold misery, death, and economic destruction. That's all it takes for him--because he wants it.

Nevermind that plenty of compulsory governments in the past deteriorated to the point they didn't maintain the infrastructure. Or, that even today's governments don't maintain that infrastructure--US bridges in terrible shape. Christ! I can't even drive to work without dodging potholes from the year before that still aren't fixed! Terrible tap water--that I am forced to pay for whether I use it or not. Etc, etc, etc.

No, he doesn't even consider any of that. Nope. Its just because he wants it. That is good enough for him to compel everybody--including the non-consenters.

Full disclosure: Unfortunately for Utbagpiper I was forewarned of his tactics by PM. His tactics in this thread bear out the warning. For example, among other things, notice how, in his full post from which I extracted, he makes a sideways swipe at emotionalism in my post. But, then he heaves in his own emotionalism--sarcasm--about remaining ignorant. So. Nope. I won't be discussing anything with him. However, I reserve the right to use his comments to illustrate arrogance, faulty logic, etc,

 

[solus]

Absolutely not!

The fundamental misunderstanding here is that the statists are attempting to burden anarchists with the assurance of utopia, and claiming intellectual victory when they refuse (since it is unnecessary and beside the point,) while we know from history and common sense that government cannot provide utopia, and is in fact purposeful establishment of less than utopia, with violations of principle of morality.

Humans will never succeed in the creation of utopia. Anarchists (of my variety, which may be one) do not claim otherwise.

forgive me, stealth et al., but when folk nonchalantly throw terms such as 'the statists' and 'anarchists' without properly identifying the terms through association to some sort of reality, the terms quickly become surreal and mythical entities which soon take on disproportional characteristics capable of accomplishing astonishing feats of mayhem. this is especially true since the terms are characterized as opposites.

remember, the word 'angry' can and does means a myriad of things (pissed of, frustrated, ad nausm) to everyone and to use it saying you are angry to someone w/o their understanding of your definition leads to significant confusion and everyone's message is not communicated satisfactorily.

additionally, the inclination to broadly use the words without encompassing any type of economic status is a misnomer per se.

therefore, could someone provide specific definition to these terms to include whom the statists or anarchists are in today's environment instead of vague references to a philosophical boogieman. when the founding fathers wrote, they had specific entities in mind as they put their guidelines down on paper to govern the new country.

thanks

ipse

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Many as well still suffer from the romantic but flawed notion that government is the indispensable provider of law and order rather than a parasitic and predatory institution of force. They imagine, despite the history and nature of government, that it can be limited and used for good.

Thank you!! You jogged something for me. Something fundamental, I think.

First, let me establish a term. Throughout this thread I've had to type and type and type terms like proponents of compulsory government and supporters of government, etc. Let me do this. Let me just use a short, easy-to-type term. Just realize that when I write it here in this post, it carries none of the usual negative connotations. It just means proponents of compulsory government. That's all, nothing more. The term is statist. In fact, since we are talking about people who think government can be used for good, I will call them nice statists.

----------


Statists looking to control government into good behavior seem to be overlooking something. The ramifications of their agreement that compulsory government is OK, it just needs to be controlled properly.

By agreeing that the state is OK, desirable, beneficial, etc., they are saying it is OK for others to rule them without their consent. Fair is fair. If it is OK for the nice statist to rule any other peaceful human being without his consent, then it naturally follows that others can rule the nice statist without his consent.

Force is force. Coercion is coercion. Once the nice statist agrees with coercion and force he's opened the box. Now, its anybody's argument about what constitutes good compulsory government. The qualifier "...beneficial if it can be made to follow the constitution, behave itself, be respectful of rights, whatever" only comes after the agreement--when its too late. The deed is done. The agreement given. The winning argument handed over to the greedy, the power-seekers, the controlling, the insufferable nannies. The nice statist now has to spend a lifetime trying to argue and persuade others that their version of government violates his rights or somebody's rights. He actually agreed! they should have that power over him--to compel him to go along with whatever government they like.

Now, some nice statist might say, "but, I only agreed with coercion to the extent limited by my qualifier." Yeah, right. When was the last time a statist accepted that? Nope. The next words the nice statist will hear will be something that boils down to, "but, my way really is the best, and you should see that, and if you don't, well, that's what my majority of statists thinks, and if you won't go along with it, that's what police are for."

And, these nice statists actually agreed!! to hand that power over themselves to others!!

It boggles the mind, now that I think about it. I may be stuck on the receiving end of bad statists, but I'll be damned if I will agree to it!

 

[utbagpiper]

See, folks. Because he wants infrastructure, the rest of mankind has to suffer untold misery, death, and economic destruction. That's all it takes for him--because he wants it.

Really, really sad. Rather than provide any real information on what you'd do differently, you take to personal insults and twisting of words.

I'm thrilled if a bunch of anarchists want to live in a state of nature or voluntarism. I really am. I thought I had made that fairly clear in my post. Have a ball. I might even like to join you once you demonstrate some measure of success.

Unfortunately, your ability to persuade is greatly hampered by an inability or unwillingness to explain, rather than merely complain.

Unfortunately for Utbagpiper I was forewarned of his tactics by PM.

I see you care nothing for the rule against divulging the contents of PMs.

for example, among other things, notice how, in his full post from which I extracted, he makes a sideways swipe at emotionalism in my post. But, then he heaves in his own emotionalism--sarcasm--about remaining ignorant.

Sarcasm isn't an emotion. But I guess you dig for scraps where you can.

It occurs to me that your arguments would have applied equally well to the proponents of slavery in 1860.

The slave economy of the South had no assurance of a ready alternative.

The compulsory government proponents would have required an alternative to slavery to oppose the immorality.

The compulsory government proponents would have required the abolitionists to present a viable alternate system, slavery being accepted until that time. Perpetuated indefinitely.

Actually, the abolitionists did present a couple of different alternatives. One popular one prior to the war was so-called repatriation of slaves to Africa. You might recall the nation of Liberia. But, fundamentally, it was clear that non-slave labor was a completely viable alternative economically. In fact, prior to the invention of the cotton gin and the profitability it gave to cotton, African slavery in the US was on the decline as season labor was getting to be less costly for planting and harvest than was maintaining slaves year round.

Notably, France and England had previously abolished slavery and they were surviving quite nicely. Closer to home the northern States had abolished slavery and were doing fine as well.

Far more relevant to this discussion that some very flawed attempts to cast those who are not ready to sign on to your inexplicable non-plans as some kind of racists by linking them to slavers is this little tidbit:

It was GOVERNMENT force that ended slavery in this nation. In doing so, the government violated what many Southerners including both slave owners and poor sharecroppers viewed as their rights to govern themselves and order their society as they saw fit. The slaves were unable to free themselves. Lacking government, who exactly would have been able to end slavery? Lacking government who determines that the slaves' rights to self are at least equal to the rights of slave owners to control their property?

Notably, slavery really started in this nation when one tribe in Africa captured some people from a rival tribe and sold them to traders. Clearly, lack of government no more guarantees freedom and liberty than does government.

It was the much hated federal government stepped in to put an end to privately-conducted racial lynchings in the Jim Crow South.

In the 4,500 years of government you cite, and some 250 years of relatively modern governments, the anarchists are hard pressed to find any really good examples of anarchy actually working for very long. I suppose if I was attempting to persuade people to move away from something that--while imperfect--had a decent track record of proving for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessing of liberty to hundreds of millions of persons, I too might feign offense and refuse to discuss issue when someone asked for details if was no better at offering those details than you seem to be.

But don't worry, I don't intend to actually discuss anything with you. I shall, instead, use your tactics of just reserving the right to quote your mis-statements to show how very weak your non-proposal is.

And I fully expect that in response to these observations, you will respond with some snippet of a "mutual aid society" or some other fine theory of how slavery could have ended in the absence of government. Never mind that currently it is those regions of the world without functioning governments where slavery remains most common. The weak tend to have a very hard time defending themselves against the strong. Government is not perfect, but seems to provide more protection for the rights of weak or unpopular minorities than those minorities can garner for themselves.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

There is no fence keeping anyone here who wants to leave. And nobody is swimming through 90 miles of shark infested water to get out of this nation.

Our nation and society are far from perfect. There is and always will be much work to be done. And I'm very open to ideas for improvement up to an including a peaceful, complete re-ordering of society sans government as we know it. But to suggest we abolish something that is working fairly well, far better than most any other government or society in recent history, in favor of nothing, hoping that something better will materialize is a fools' bid. All experience shows that when governments are abolished, the most likely replacement is a far worse government.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Statists looking to control government into good behavior seem to be overlooking something. The ramifications of their agreement that compulsory government is OK, it just needs to be controlled properly.

Anarchist have this romantic notion that in the absence of government problems go away, that no force is needed...well except to defend your legitimate rights against real violation by bad guys. In that one case, force is ok.

But they staunchly refuse to discuss any details of how any just, impartial determination is to be made of what are real rights, and what level of force is justified to defend them. When pressed for such details they will feign offense and claim that those who want to continue the current system are obliged to defend it rather than those who want to abolish it providing any details on alternatives. By this rationale, were they to ever actually abolish government, anarchy would become the new status quo and they would then be forced to defend keeping it rather than those who proposed something else being required to offer details of what that next new thing is.

Such a non-system of support for the status quo would result in a never ending cycle of frequent changes as every system of society among mortal men is sure to have flaws and dwelling upon those flaws without any concession to the benefits imparted by the current system, nor any obligation to provide evidence a new system would be better would result in a perpetual race to adopt the non-existent (non) system that promises utopia.

More simply put, anything (including gun control) can be justified by looking at only one side of the cost/benefit equation.

You highlight all the costs of government without considering any of the benefits. You cannot weigh any of the costs or benefits of your proposed alternative because you have no alternative other than "not this".

It is really a very intellectual lazy and unconvincing method of arguing. But do have fun.

Charles

 

[Citizen]

SNIP therefore, could someone provide specific definition to these terms to include whom the statists or anarchists are in today's environment instead of vague references to a philosophical boogieman.

A statist is at its essence someone who believes in the state--the group of people ruling everybody else aka the government.

An anarchist is a little trickier. As used by those on this forum who call themselves anarchists, an anarchist is someone who believes in no rulers. Archon being the ancient Greek for chief or ruler. The prefix an meaning none, no, without. The tricky part is to sort out a particular distinction. The difference between rule (compulsory, coercion) and consent. This board's anarchists are not promoting disorder--anarchy!!--in the sense used in the 1800s. This board's anarchists are saying, in so many words, that being compelled or coerced is rule. Voluntary equals being governed.

I can't speak for every anarchist on this board, but I'll bet I'm well in the ballpark. They might differ on the social institutions that they see replacing coercive government (being ruled), but they'll be united in the idea that those governing institutions would be voluntary.

The important point to get across is that modern anarchists are not proponents of disorder. That was just a case of a connotation becoming the meaning of the word--anarchy used to mean just no rulers. Then it picked up the connotation of riot and disorder--probably from the aristocracy with vested interests in the existing order. Then the connotation became the meaning. Not today's anarchists, not the one's on this board anyway.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

I do not agree with that assessment + that neither was my intention.

Agree that it should be opposed but not regardless of the existence or assurance of a ready alternative.

[strike]That's exactly what I said... You believe that we must wait for an alternative before abolishing what we know to be wrong. That is suspension of principles pending an alternative protecting our comfort.[/strike] Edit: It occurs to me that your post is ambiguous. Can you clarify where your agreement and disagreement lies (lay, lies, whatever?)?

We should have some idea, some anticipation of the potential effect of our words and deeds before we unleash them.

It's interesting to me that this started with my being "fascinated"......

verb
1. to attract and hold attentively by a unique power, personal charm, unusual nature, or some other special quality; enthrall: a vivacity that fascinated the audience.

2. to arouse the interest or curiosity of; allure.

That is it - no more to say in this direction of the subject of it being one in which I am fascinated/interested.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

We should have some idea, some anticipation of the potential effect of our words and deeds before we unleash them.

It's interesting to me that this started with my being "fascinated"......

verb
1. to attract and hold attentively by a unique power, personal charm, unusual nature, or some other special quality; enthrall: a vivacity that fascinated the audience.

2. to arouse the interest or curiosity of; allure.

That is it - no more to say in this direction of the subject of it being one in which I am fascinated/interested.

Ok, then I will understand your statement to mean that you agree that it should be opposed, but you do not agree that it should be opposed regardless of the assurance of a ready alternative, which is exactly what I said originally. You asked, I provided. Done deal.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You've discovered for yourself the chink in the armor of those that purport to be anarchists.

It's interesting the celebration over a supposed "chink in the armor" while the statist walk around in the emperors new clothes.

One supposed flaw ( anarchist do not believe in utopia) does not erase the countless atrocities and flaws in having people dominated by other people for the illusion of safety.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

A book tiltled The not so Wild West, shows very much how voluntary associations enforced law without government with a better track record.
Colonial Pennyslvania did pretty well too, Penn and the King had to work very hard and threaten the people there to get government "working".

 

[solus]

thanks citizen for the abbreviated definitions.

now, when the founding fathers bantered these concepts around forming their government, the populace was mainly egocentric white. now you have multiple diverse groups within all regions of the country, both socioeconomic as well as ethnic who might not subscribe to 'change' if you will and prefer the governmental status quo.

with this premise, could the country be 'governed' by a council with representatives from these socioeconomic and ethnic arenas? it worked in the middle east for centuries?

the ottomans used blood relations to govern their empire for 7 centuries? kinda rough at times but so was the wild wild west!

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

A book tiltled The not so Wild West, shows very much how voluntary associations enforced law without government with a better track record.
Colonial Pennyslvania did pretty well too, Penn and the King had to work very hard and threaten the people there to get government "working".

Would you be so good as to provide a brief overview of how these systems functioned?

 

[Citizen]

Would you be so good as to provide a brief overview of how these systems functioned?

SVG, ATM, Stealth, PPM,

If you reply to this stuff, do it for the benefit of genuinely interested readers.

I say this because the hardcore statist supporters of coercion and force in this thread seem more than willing to drag us off into the weeds, hoping we'll get mired down in their side arguments, while totally avoiding one of the most important questions of all: equality. They will not, dare not fully admit the inescapable arrogance underpinning their position--that they are more equal than others and can rule those others without their express individual consent.

How do you "unequal" the other fellow? You either gotta raise yourself above him; or, lessen him in your own mind so that he becomes less than you.

That is a red-hot potato they won't touch.

 

[utbagpiper]

It seems there are those who are terrified of actually have a discussion or providing any data. Some are so terrified of such exchanges they encourage others not to discuss? They belittle any who ask questions as though the mere asking was an indication of hostility.

My goodness, this is looking like the tactics used by brainwashing and controlling cults, rather than how sane men exchange political and social ideas with one another.

How about some basic questions that should be non-threatening to any honest person?

How does a volunteer non-government different from what we'd recognize as a local government today? What are the defining characteristics?

Is such a non-government social order defined geographically, or is it defined by membership such that you might have multiple such social orders co-existing in the same geographic area?

It isn't like there is a whole lot of activity on this thread. Most seem uninterested in a non-discussion where their support for our constitutional republic will immediately get them labeled as statists, less than (not an equal), unworthy to discuss with, and otherwise derided. I'm probably just a glutton for punishment to even ask these questions.

But I am interested since I believe one sign of a mature mind is the ability to entertain an ideal without necessarily embracing it.

Are there any of the anarchists willing and able to enlighten me rather than just criticize?

Charles

 

[Jim675]

I love to see liberty discussed here! As said above, anarchy does not mean chaos, lawlessness. All of the institutions of modern society still exist on a voluntary basis. Police, fire, courts, judges, jails, teachers, medical care, food providers, and roads have all been managed at various times and places in this country.

Don't like the commercial fire agency in your area? Don't pay them. Or pool your resources with dissatisfied neighbors, hire away the good staff from the local company and put them out of business.

Property damaged? Hire a legal firm. The accused hires their own, if they like. Firms disagree - 3rd party arbitration. He runs - place a bounty. All of this too expensive - buy insurance to spread it out over time or join a legal collective to spread out costs with your neighbors who voluntarily agree with your choices.

Same process works for everything. Pay as you go. Buy insurance. Join a service pool. All of the above. Or none and take your chances.

We've trusted UL to tell us appliances are safe for years without them growing into a behemoth that stifles all innovation, enforces monopolies, and orders us to buy olive green Kenmore refrigerators whether we need them or not. Or else. If only our government could manage the same restraint.

Or perhaps we can help them. Slowly. In fits and starts, to keep making progress towards liberty in ways old and new. Let States compete as marketplaces for our money, services, and loyalties. But first we need to start removing the Feds tentacles from every facet of our lives. Getting them out of our holsters would be a fine start.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

SVG, ATM, Stealth, PPM,

If you reply to this stuff, do it for the benefit of genuinely interested readers.

I say this because the hardcore statist supporters of coercion and force in this thread seem more than willing to drag us off into the weeds, hoping we'll get mired down in their side arguments, while totally avoiding one of the most important questions of all: equality. They will not, dare not fully admit the inescapable arrogance underpinning their position--that they are more equal than others and can rule those others without their express individual consent.

How do you "unequal" the other fellow? You either gotta raise yourself above him; or, lessen him in your own mind so that he becomes less than you.

That is a red-hot potato they won't touch.

I'd rather discuss with Primus, I have given up discussing with him. He isn't actually interested in a discussion.

I gave the references in my comment. Its been talked about ad naseum over the years. And his habit of misapplying "the facts" over and over again is not worth it. (Grape said we can't say he lies anymore).

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I love to see liberty discussed here! As said above, anarchy does not mean chaos, lawlessness. All of the institutions of modern society still exist on a voluntary basis. Police, fire, courts, judges, jails, teachers, medical care, food providers, and roads have all been managed at various times and places in this country.

Don't like the commercial fire agency in your area? Don't pay them. Or pool your resources with dissatisfied neighbors, hire away the good staff from the local company and put them out of business.

Property damaged? Hire a legal firm. The accused hires their own, if they like. Firms disagree - 3rd party arbitration. He runs - place a bounty. All of this too expensive - buy insurance to spread it out over time or join a legal collective to spread out costs with your neighbors who voluntarily agree with your choices.

Same process works for everything. Pay as you go. Buy insurance. Join a service pool. All of the above. Or none and take your chances.

We've trusted UL to tell us appliances are safe for years without them growing into a behemoth that stifles all innovation, enforces monopolies, and orders us to buy olive green Kenmore refrigerators whether we need them or not. Or else. If only our government could manage the same restraint.

Or perhaps we can help them. Slowly. In fits and starts, to keep making progress towards liberty in ways old and new. Let States compete as marketplaces for our money, services, and loyalties. But first we need to start removing the Feds tentacles from every facet of our lives. Getting them out of our holsters would be a fine start.

Well put.

 

[OC for ME]

But how do you get to decide what are criminal depredations against which you can defend yourself vs minor annoyances which must be tolerated so as to respect my rights?

You get to decide what I must consider as a crime and what I must consider as a minor annoyance because there is a government, a very real threat of violent and lethal force if I do not consider things in a manner consistent with your musts. The reality is that this is exactly how life works, today. Where I can sever the bonds between me and the state I do so at every occasion. The state needs me far far more than I need them.

Is walking across your posted property a major offense such that you can shoot me? Or a minor tort for which I might be expected to pay some minimal fine or other small penalty?

What the heck are you doing walking across my property, without first being granted permission to do so, by me. Do you hold so little regard for my property right? Do you need a government to protect you from the consequences from your not respecting my right(s)?

Are speeding, running red lights and stop signs, DUI, and shooting randomly into the air in urban areas real crimes that can be punished? Or is there no crime committed until someone's person or property is actually damaged?s

You do realize it, you just do not agree with it, or the premise. Doing these things harms no one, except the state, this is nothing but prior restraint...bad, very bad, and very anti-liberty...the concept of prior restraint is anti-liberty, not you specifically.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

How does a volunteer non-government different from what we'd recognize as a local government today? What are the defining characteristics?

In my opinion, and only off of the top of my head, the only necessary difference would be but a single vein of distinction - strict adherence to the non-aggression principle. In my opinion, often, those that present themselves as proponents of liberty but that are still proponents of traditional governments often view the formation of government as the condensing of violation of this principle into a single organization that might be kept in check to keep violations at a tolerable level. This is to create exceptions to principle for no other purpose than a perceived necessity to comfort or civilization, which is a moral violation. Actual societal structure in a stateless society wouldn't have to be that drastically different than what it is now, as long as that single vein is present, that every is actually equal, and the non-aggression principle applies equally to all men. Government, by the way, is comprised of men. (I use that term, men, to refer to humankind, no reference to gender)

Is such a non-government social order defined geographically, or is it defined by membership such that you might have multiple such social orders co-existing in the same geographic area?

I don't believe we're discussing a single, definable, structure. That's kind of characteristic of "anarchy" The consistent vein, or theme, among each society, structure, order, what have you, would be adherence to the universal, self-evident truths and morals, the natural order. This would undoubtedly require significant effort and vigilance on the part of good people, which is also considered a necessity to the success of a minimalistic, "free" government. One of the key differences is that if all of the good people in the later scenario are successful, at best they're still left with fundamental principle violations, even if they're successful in keeping those violations to a minimum. In a stateless society, there would be actual, true freedom upon the success of the good people. Both scenarios require the same effort by the same people, one difference is the result of the success of those people. In either scenario, the failure of those people has a similar result - increased violations, and the ramifications thereof. It is important to note that we're talking about the same people existing in either scenario. Everyone that exists in this country today, all of the police officers, all of the fire fighters, all of the doctors, all of the road crews, all of the plane pilots, would all of these people suddenly vanish or lose their goodness or lose their skills if the state were to be abolished? No. What's to stop them from continuing to do any good that they were doing previously? If anything that they were doing was of value, it is silly to think that they'd be unable to market their services in a stateless society.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You get to decide what I must consider as a crime and what I must consider as a minor annoyance because there is a government, a very real threat of violent and lethal force if I do not consider things in a manner consistent with your musts. The reality is that this is exactly how life works, today. Where I can sever the bonds between me and the state I do so at every occasion. The state needs me far far more than I need them.
What the heck are you doing walking across my property, without first being granted permission to do so, by me. Do you hold so little regard for my property right? Do you need a government to protect you from the consequences from your not respecting my right(s)?

You do realize it, you just do not agree with it, or the premise. Doing these things harms no one, except the state, this is nothing but prior restraint...bad, very bad, and very anti-liberty...the concept of prior restraint is anti-liberty, not you specifically.

+1 Kudos! I love it I do the same. (to the bolded part).

I find many of the statist arguments (I don't consider you a statist even though you are not an anarchist, statism to me is putting the state above the individual) are the same used by the anti gun folks. They believe lots of people owning guns will be blood on the street, mass violence etc.

Its the same as thinking people will just start killing others because someone inadvertently trespassed. Something that rarely happens and when it does the state is powerless to prevent it.