Any Anarchists out there?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by James Milibanter
You can have democracy within an anarchy, you can also have force without it being coercive, if you refuse give currency any value then quite simply doesn't.
there isn't anything wrong with property, for instance, I can own a bike, i can lend this bike that i have paid/bartered/etc for to someone if i wish to or i cannot. However in a mutualist or even an equal society no one person is more important/wealthy than the next. Think about it as if there was a 100% tax rate, that'll help.
there isn't anything wrong with property, for instance, I can own a bike, i can lend this bike that i have paid/bartered/etc for to someone if i wish to or i cannot. However in a mutualist or even an equal society no one person is more important/wealthy than the next. Think about it as if there was a 100% tax rate, that'll help.
You can't prevent other people from sticking a value on currency however.
People may decide to trade their 'possessions' or even offer personal services.
Communism ultimately fails because its attempt to impose absolute equality of outcome. People are not equal. Some are born stronger, taller and smarter than others. Not everyone has the ability to 'create' wealth ie start a business, service or factory.
Rejection of the division of labour doesn't help communists either. Where are 'workers' going to get all the stuff needed to build a factory? How do they decide they want another factory? How do they decide whether to build a museum or a cinema?
People have different abilities and strengths and is why they have different outcomes.
Inequality may not be nice but it is a fundamental fact of nature.
Original post by Falcatas
You can't prevent other people from sticking a value on currency however.
People may decide to trade their 'possessions' or even offer personal services.
Communism ultimately fails because its attempt to impose absolute equality of outcome. People are not equal. Some are born stronger, taller and smarter than others. Not everyone has the ability to 'create' wealth ie start a business, service or factory.
Rejection of the division of labour doesn't help communists either. Where are 'workers' going to get all the stuff needed to build a factory? How do they decide they want another factory? How do they decide whether to build a museum or a cinema?
People have different abilities and strengths and is why they have different outcomes.
Inequality may not be nice but it is a fundamental fact of nature.
People may decide to trade their 'possessions' or even offer personal services.
Communism ultimately fails because its attempt to impose absolute equality of outcome. People are not equal. Some are born stronger, taller and smarter than others. Not everyone has the ability to 'create' wealth ie start a business, service or factory.
Rejection of the division of labour doesn't help communists either. Where are 'workers' going to get all the stuff needed to build a factory? How do they decide they want another factory? How do they decide whether to build a museum or a cinema?
People have different abilities and strengths and is why they have different outcomes.
Inequality may not be nice but it is a fundamental fact of nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava
All today, if people aren't equal it's because some of us are more oppressed than others.
Who's to say that democracy can't exist under an anarchy?
Original post by James Milibanter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava
All today, if people aren't equal it's because some of us are more oppressed than others.
Who's to say that democracy can't exist under an anarchy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava
All today, if people aren't equal it's because some of us are more oppressed than others.
Who's to say that democracy can't exist under an anarchy?
Democracy is overrated and very inefficient.
Just because a majority think it does not mean it is the best course of action. Rule of the people doesn't mean much as each person is an individual with different subjective preferences and desires.
Democracy ultimately becomes rule of the majority.
What are defining as oppression? Would most of people you call oppressed describe themselves as oppressed?
As for one of the articles I found the following sentance to be of interest:
"The EZLN opposes economic globalization, arguing that it severely and negatively affects the peasant life of its indigenous support base and oppressed people worldwide. "
Which is completely contrary to reality. Economical globalization has made everyone richer. While of course, some people have benefited more than others even the people at the bottom have benefited greatly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=238
Original post by Falcatas
Democracy is overrated and very inefficient.
Just because a majority think it does not mean it is the best course of action. Rule of the people doesn't mean much as each person is an individual with different subjective preferences and desires.
Democracy ultimately becomes rule of the majority.
What are defining as oppression? Would most of people you call oppressed describe themselves as oppressed?
As for one of the articles I found the following sentance to be of interest:
"The EZLN opposes economic globalization, arguing that it severely and negatively affects the peasant life of its indigenous support base and oppressed people worldwide. "
Which is completely contrary to reality. Economical globalization has made everyone richer. While of course, some people have benefited more than others even the people at the bottom have benefited greatly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=238
Just because a majority think it does not mean it is the best course of action. Rule of the people doesn't mean much as each person is an individual with different subjective preferences and desires.
Democracy ultimately becomes rule of the majority.
What are defining as oppression? Would most of people you call oppressed describe themselves as oppressed?
As for one of the articles I found the following sentance to be of interest:
"The EZLN opposes economic globalization, arguing that it severely and negatively affects the peasant life of its indigenous support base and oppressed people worldwide. "
Which is completely contrary to reality. Economical globalization has made everyone richer. While of course, some people have benefited more than others even the people at the bottom have benefited greatly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=238
This is untrue, the USA which has the largest amount of socioeconomic disparity in the world, has only been increasing since Thatcher and Reagan.
Anarchism is a completely unworkable political philosophy, and whenever I've debated with anarchists they tend to duck and wave, obfuscate and throw up smokescreens and bleat that I'm a "statist" to avoid addressing the total impracticability of their ideology.
But I am willing to have another go. Let's say we've transitioned to your anarchist society, where there is no centralised police force, only privatised police forces to whom you have to pay a subscription. An insane billionaire has just kidnapped my 15 year old son, and his holding him for nefarious purposes on his fortified estate in Worcestershire. I call up my police provider and ask them to investigate. They say my policy doesn't cover investigations outside London, and I will have to upgrade to the Premium package. I do this, and they send detectives to investigate. When they arrive at the estate, the billionaire's estate manager says that he doesn't want to speak to them, that they have no power to enter his property and he doesn't consent to any investigation. He says if they attempt to enter his property, it will be the last thing they ever do.
I can't get any satisfaction because there are no courts I can appeal to for assistance, no police force that holds a general mandate from the public to investigate and respond to crime. I lack the resources to put together a private army that would be able to confront the billionaire in any plausible way. And so in this scenario, this is no justice for me and my son.
Anarchists often complain about being forced to do things to which they do not consent, by a government they may not support. So what they propose is to do away with a system where we make decisions about the balance between public and private interests through a system of elected representatives, and replace it with a system where that balance is decided in every case based on who can muster more physical force. So instead of being compelled to do things I might not like by a government that has been chosen by the people in the aggregate, I'm compelled to do this I don't want to do by every tinpot magnate and billionaire owner of a private army. Personally, I prefer the system where I at least have a say through the ballot box, and recourse through the courts.
But I am willing to have another go. Let's say we've transitioned to your anarchist society, where there is no centralised police force, only privatised police forces to whom you have to pay a subscription. An insane billionaire has just kidnapped my 15 year old son, and his holding him for nefarious purposes on his fortified estate in Worcestershire. I call up my police provider and ask them to investigate. They say my policy doesn't cover investigations outside London, and I will have to upgrade to the Premium package. I do this, and they send detectives to investigate. When they arrive at the estate, the billionaire's estate manager says that he doesn't want to speak to them, that they have no power to enter his property and he doesn't consent to any investigation. He says if they attempt to enter his property, it will be the last thing they ever do.
I can't get any satisfaction because there are no courts I can appeal to for assistance, no police force that holds a general mandate from the public to investigate and respond to crime. I lack the resources to put together a private army that would be able to confront the billionaire in any plausible way. And so in this scenario, this is no justice for me and my son.
Anarchists often complain about being forced to do things to which they do not consent, by a government they may not support. So what they propose is to do away with a system where we make decisions about the balance between public and private interests through a system of elected representatives, and replace it with a system where that balance is decided in every case based on who can muster more physical force. So instead of being compelled to do things I might not like by a government that has been chosen by the people in the aggregate, I'm compelled to do this I don't want to do by every tinpot magnate and billionaire owner of a private army. Personally, I prefer the system where I at least have a say through the ballot box, and recourse through the courts.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
Anarchism is a completely unworkable political philosophy, and whenever I've debated with anarchists they tend to duck and wave, obfuscate and throw up smokescreens and bleat that I'm a "statist" to avoid addressing the total impracticability of their ideology.
But I am willing to have another go. Let's say we've transitioned to your anarchist society, where there is no centralised police force, only privatised police forces to whom you have to pay a subscription. An insane billionaire has just kidnapped my 15 year old son, and his holding him for nefarious purposes on his fortified estate in Worcestershire. I call up my police provider and ask them to investigate. They say my policy doesn't cover investigations outside London, and I will have to upgrade to the Premium package. I do this, and they send detectives to investigate. When they arrive at the estate, the billionaire's estate manager says that he doesn't want to speak to them, that they have no power to enter his property and he doesn't consent to any investigation. He says if they attempt to enter his property, it will be the last thing they ever do.
I can't get any satisfaction because there are no courts I can appeal to for assistance, no police force that holds a general mandate from the public to investigate and respond to crime. I lack the resources to put together a private army that would be able to confront the billionaire in any plausible way. And so in this scenario, this is no justice for me and my son.
Anarchists often complain about being forced to do things to which they do not consent, by a government they may not support. So what they propose is to do away with a system where we make decisions about the balance between public and private interests through a system of elected representatives, and replace it with a system where that balance is decided in every case based on who can muster more physical force. So instead of being compelled to do things I might not like by a government that has been chosen by the people in the aggregate, I'm compelled to do this I don't want to do by every tinpot magnate and billionaire owner of a private army. Personally, I prefer the system where I at least have a say through the ballot box, and recourse through the courts.
But I am willing to have another go. Let's say we've transitioned to your anarchist society, where there is no centralised police force, only privatised police forces to whom you have to pay a subscription. An insane billionaire has just kidnapped my 15 year old son, and his holding him for nefarious purposes on his fortified estate in Worcestershire. I call up my police provider and ask them to investigate. They say my policy doesn't cover investigations outside London, and I will have to upgrade to the Premium package. I do this, and they send detectives to investigate. When they arrive at the estate, the billionaire's estate manager says that he doesn't want to speak to them, that they have no power to enter his property and he doesn't consent to any investigation. He says if they attempt to enter his property, it will be the last thing they ever do.
I can't get any satisfaction because there are no courts I can appeal to for assistance, no police force that holds a general mandate from the public to investigate and respond to crime. I lack the resources to put together a private army that would be able to confront the billionaire in any plausible way. And so in this scenario, this is no justice for me and my son.
Anarchists often complain about being forced to do things to which they do not consent, by a government they may not support. So what they propose is to do away with a system where we make decisions about the balance between public and private interests through a system of elected representatives, and replace it with a system where that balance is decided in every case based on who can muster more physical force. So instead of being compelled to do things I might not like by a government that has been chosen by the people in the aggregate, I'm compelled to do this I don't want to do by every tinpot magnate and billionaire owner of a private army. Personally, I prefer the system where I at least have a say through the ballot box, and recourse through the courts.
Sounds like you've been debating with AnCaps, who are generally not considered to be a legitimate part of the anarchist tradition, but are rather more akin to classical liberalism on steroids.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Falcatas
Democracy is overrated and very inefficient.
The wide sweep of history would tend to say something different. It suggests that democracy coupled with the rule of law, as practiced in the Anglosphere, is the best (or least worst) system for choosing our governments and lawmakers while protecting the rights of the individual.
Just because a majority think it does not mean it is the best course of action. Rule of the people doesn't mean much as each person is an individual with different subjective preferences and desires.
Democracy ultimately becomes rule of the majority.
Democracy ultimately becomes rule of the majority.
Democracy as practiced in the West is nothing like majority rule, we always have checks and balances and concepts of the rule of law, protection of individual rights, have been embedded into our legal system, in the customs and practices of the civil service and ministerial class, and culturally/psychologically in those who are involved in government.
Governments often make unpopular decisions where they are clearly the optimum outcome. A good example of this is when parliament, supported by Homse Secretary Roy Jenkins, pushed through the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967 despite widespread opposition and majority opinion opposing it.
(To TSRians, I know this is not entirely irrelevant and a bit salacious, but did any of you know that Roy Jenkins and Tony Crosland were lovers when they were students at Oxford in the late 30s? Amazing, I didn't know this until a few days ago when a friend pointed it out to me
It's a pretty amazing story, even a bit sad
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10687788/Roy-Jenkins-male-lover-Tony-Crosland-tried-to-halt-his-marriage.html)
Original post by Comus
Sounds like you've been debating with AnCaps, who are generally not considered to be a legitimate part of the anarchist tradition, but are rather more akin to classical liberalism on steroids.
How does your anarchism express itself?
In particular, in your anarchist society what would happen to parliament, the courts and the police?
Original post by young_guns
Anarchism is a completely unworkable political philosophy, and whenever I've debated with anarchists they tend to duck and wave, obfuscate and throw up smokescreens and bleat that I'm a "statist" to avoid addressing the total impracticability of their ideology.
But I am willing to have another go. Let's say we've transitioned to your anarchist society, where there is no centralised police force, only privatised police forces to whom you have to pay a subscription. An insane billionaire has just kidnapped my 15 year old son, and his holding him for nefarious purposes on his fortified estate in Worcestershire. I call up my police provider and ask them to investigate. They say my policy doesn't cover investigations outside London, and I will have to upgrade to the Premium package. I do this, and they send detectives to investigate. When they arrive at the estate, the billionaire's estate manager says that he doesn't want to speak to them, that they have no power to enter his property and he doesn't consent to any investigation. He says if they attempt to enter his property, it will be the last thing they ever do.
I can't get any satisfaction because there are no courts I can appeal to for assistance, no police force that holds a general mandate from the public to investigate and respond to crime. I lack the resources to put together a private army that would be able to confront the billionaire in any plausible way. And so in this scenario, this is no justice for me and my son. Anarchy means just that. And it means the strong can force themselves on the weak, in a way not seen in this country since the middle ages.
But I am willing to have another go. Let's say we've transitioned to your anarchist society, where there is no centralised police force, only privatised police forces to whom you have to pay a subscription. An insane billionaire has just kidnapped my 15 year old son, and his holding him for nefarious purposes on his fortified estate in Worcestershire. I call up my police provider and ask them to investigate. They say my policy doesn't cover investigations outside London, and I will have to upgrade to the Premium package. I do this, and they send detectives to investigate. When they arrive at the estate, the billionaire's estate manager says that he doesn't want to speak to them, that they have no power to enter his property and he doesn't consent to any investigation. He says if they attempt to enter his property, it will be the last thing they ever do.
I can't get any satisfaction because there are no courts I can appeal to for assistance, no police force that holds a general mandate from the public to investigate and respond to crime. I lack the resources to put together a private army that would be able to confront the billionaire in any plausible way. And so in this scenario, this is no justice for me and my son. Anarchy means just that. And it means the strong can force themselves on the weak, in a way not seen in this country since the middle ages.
Why an earth did you pick a private police force (or private defence agency) that doesn't cover for crimes outside of London? Such a private group would unlikely exist because other competitors would be willing to provide cover wherever needed.
They could charge in regardless of objections of the billionaire but of course they would be liable for their actions. If no crime had been committed then a severe case of trespassing and destruction of property would have occurred and the billionaire would get his PDA to resolve this issue.
If you would complain the billionaire has his own army that is 5000x the size of any other PDA then we get to the typical "Wouldn't Warlords take over?"
http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
People are not going to voluntary associate with someone who advocates kidnapping not matter how rich they are.
Also what is to stop the same exact situation happening with a state? Are state officials immune to bribery? Are they more virtuous than the average person?
Most of these types of criticism assume humans are inherently evil and that we require the state to prevent us from everyday psychopathy.
Original post by young_guns
The wide sweep of history would tend to say something different. It suggests that democracy coupled with the rule of law, as practiced in the Anglosphere, is the best (or least worst) system for choosing our governments and lawmakers while protecting the rights of the individual.
Democracy as practiced in the West is nothing like majority rule, we always have checks and balances and concepts of the rule of law, protection of individual rights, have been embedded into our legal system, in the customs and practices of the civil service and ministerial class, and culturally/psychologically in those who are involved in government.
Democracy as practiced in the West is nothing like majority rule, we always have checks and balances and concepts of the rule of law, protection of individual rights, have been embedded into our legal system, in the customs and practices of the civil service and ministerial class, and culturally/psychologically in those who are involved in government.
I did not mean that democracy is the absolute worst system and of course I appreciate the Enlightenment period and the freedom we have achieved in the West.
However we still live in a society where a group has the authority to initiate aggression against others. They are able to take your earnings and spend them on however they want. Punishing victimless crimes and engaging in mass murder by foreign wars are among the things they also do.
Interestingly the concept of how democracy is practiced in the West is now being criticised with regard to specific voting systems.
One could argue that the FPTP system in the UK ensures there the government will also be able to enact legislation.
A system like PR is criticised often because it would lead to government that wouldn't be able to agree on what to do. This is apparent more democratic and I guess I would favour it to the current system.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
How does your anarchism express itself?
In particular, in your anarchist society what would happen to parliament, the courts and the police?
In particular, in your anarchist society what would happen to parliament, the courts and the police?
The anarchist tradition is generally traced back to Proudhon and developed significantly during the 19th and early 20th century by the likes of Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin, particularly during the era of the first international where anarchist ideas were developed alongside Marxism. Contemporary anarchist thinkers include Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky.
There are different schools of thought within anarchism, including theories on economic and political organisation as well as the means to achieve these goals. What unites all of these however, is scepticism and suspicion of hierarchy - to paraphrase Chomsky, anarchism is a process by which one identifies a hierarchical relationship, challenges it and if the existence of the hierarchy cannot be justified then it should be dismantled and replaced with a non-hierarchical structure. Mainstream anarchism holds that the state (an institution which claims a monopoly on the use of violence over a given area), capitalism, racism, patriarchy and heteronormativity (this list is not exhaustive) are not justified and so should be dismantled. Anarchism is not the absence of rules but the absence of rulers.
Examples of anarchism occurring in practice include Revolutionary Catalonia and The Ukrainian Free Territory.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Falcatas
Why an earth did you pick a private police force (or private defence agency) that doesn't cover for crimes outside of London? Such a private group would unlikely exist because other competitors would be willing to provide cover wherever needed
I'm sorry but given this is a complete fantasy scenario, you're not really in a position to say what these services would entail. I don't think it's implausible to suggest that a private policing service might have similar kinds of issues to those seen in US health insurance.
They could charge in regardless of objections of the billionaire but of course they would be liable for their actions.
On what basis do they have the right to charge in? You're saying that anyone can charge into anyone's property, any time they like, under your anarchist system? That seems more violating of individual rights than the current system.
Personally, I'd prefer a system where breaking someone's door down and going into their property is regulated by a system of laws.
If you would complain the billionaire has his own army that is 5000x the size of any other PDA then we get to the typical "Wouldn't Warlords take over?"
http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
The article is poorly written and completely fails to establish the points it is trying to make.
When the private police force arrive at the estate, the billionaire passes a message to them saying, "I didn't kidnap the kid, but I do believe strongly that my private property is inviolable, which is the organising principle of our anarchist society. If you attempt to violate my property, I will kill you and anyone else you send".
Also what is to stop the same exact situation happening with a state?
The fact that billionaires are not permitted to keep private armies, and that the state is equipped such that if there is a lawfully issued search warrant, they would not be in a position to resist it.
Most of these types of criticism assume humans are inherently evil and that we require the state to prevent us from everyday psychopathy.
No, these criticisms understand that criminality occurs in all classes of society, and that your anarchist society appears to sanction violations of private property whenever someone wants, and unregulated by any law.
However we still live in a society where a group has the authority to initiate aggression against others. They are able to take your earnings and spend them on however they want.
They are not able to "spend them however they want". The citizen renders taxes to a central body, and the decisions about how to spend those taxes are made by a government chosen by the citizens in the aggregate. That seems pretty straightforward and reasonable.
You also claimed that if the police entered the billionaire's property and no crime had be committed, they would have committed trespass and destruction of property. How would such a crime be prosecuted? Or even decided upon as a crime? Where is the court system to prosecute it? Where is the impartial, central body that is not beholden to any interest except that of the law and the citizens in the aggregate?
One could argue that the FPTP system in the UK ensures there the government will also be able to enact legislation.
A system like PR is criticised often because it would lead to government that wouldn't be able to agree on what to do. This is apparent more democratic and I guess I would favour it to the current system.
A system like PR is criticised often because it would lead to government that wouldn't be able to agree on what to do. This is apparent more democratic and I guess I would favour it to the current system.
Arguments over voting systems are neither here nor there. What anarchists are proposing, essentially, is that there be no lawmaking body that can promulgate laws which bind all citizens equally, and that there be no impartial court system that can vindicate the rights of citizens.
At the moment, I am actually litigating a small claim through the county court against a large company. The small claims system is actually a really well-designed, low-cost, effective system for a citizen to obtain recompense for breaches of contract and the like. In your anarchist system, this large company could simply say, "What are you going to do about it?"
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Comus
Anarchism is not the absence of rules but the absence of rulers
With respect, that seems like a trite and sophistic turn of phrase. What does it mean in practice? Specifically, what would you do to parliament, the courts and the police?
Examples of anarchism occurring in practice include Revolutionary Catalonia and The Ukrainian Free Territory
I don't have any problem with the kind of co-operative mentality anarchism you see in Spain. What I take issue with is the kind of anarchism that advocates the complete abolition of law that binds all citizens in common and that is chosen by representatives elected by the citizens in common.
As you can see above in the debate I'm having with another TSRian, some anarchists do advocate a system of private police forces, private courts etc, and then claim to be baffled by the suggestion that billionaires and wealthy people would not be in a position to exploit the fact they control far more men with guns than the citizen with whom they are in dispute.
Original post by Falcatas
You can't prevent other people from sticking a value on currency however.
People may decide to trade their 'possessions' or even offer personal services.
People may decide to trade their 'possessions' or even offer personal services.
I think the argument would go something like 'there is no anarchism without anarchists' - you would need to build a society that does not accept capitalist conceptions of money and property as legitimate. If somebody decided to enclose a resource and lay claim to 'sole and despotic dominion' over it the claim would simply fall flat as it is rejected by the rest of the population. Anarchy encompasses not just the economy, but the culture, norms and protocols of the people who live in it.
I'm not sure how convincing I find this myself. Issues like this are why I would describe myself as ethically, rather than ideologically, anarchist. Maybe one of our resident anarchists can provide a better answer.
Original post by young_guns
-
The rules would be chosen by and enforced by the people themselves using direct democracy based on consensus, though individual models of organisation differ, a common theme is the usage of federated committees.
This might clear up a few things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbjDAxdvVxo (There are two parts)
'Anarchopac' also has some good rebuttals towards various arguments put forward by AnCaps.
In the 1970s Murray Rothbard coined the term 'Anarcho-Capitalism' as part of an express attempt to co-opt the language anti-authoritarian leftist movements, including the word 'libertarian'. As such it is considerably removed from the anarchist tradition as it has existed historically. Most traditional anarchists tend to consider capitalism to be inherently statist and by extension consider "Anarcho-capitalism" to be a contradiction in terms.
Original post by Comus
The rules would be chosen by and enforced by the people
And what if people disagree on what the rules should be?
Original post by young_guns
And what if people disagree on what the rules should be?
Resolved using a pre-determined model of consensus democracy such as the one in the diagram below:
Original post by Comus
Resolved using a pre-determined model of consensus democracy such as the one in the diagram below:
So when you say "consensus", do you mean 100% consensus?
Original post by young_guns
So when you say "consensus", do you mean 100% consensus?
Again, it would be determined by the committees themselves in advance as to what would be considered sufficient consensus for a given subject matter.
Original post by young_guns
I'm sorry but given this is a complete fantasy scenario, you're not really in a position to say what these services would entail. I don't think it's implausible to suggest that a private policing service might have similar kinds of issues to those seen in US health insurance.
No one would be willing to use such a service. There would be numerous defence companies due to the high demand for defence.
It would be like choosing a bank that fails to keep your cash safe. Why an earth would you choose that bank?
On what basis do they have the right to charge in? You're saying that anyone can charge into anyone's property, any time they like, under your anarchist system? That seems more violating of individual rights than the current system.
Personally, I'd prefer a system where breaking someone's door down and going into their property is regulated by a system of laws.
The same things when the police smash down doors looking for drugs or illegal immigrants.
Private companies not have the right to do anything they just would be physical able to. This doesn't mean they could get away with anything of course.
They would be just as liable for their own actions just as anyone else should be.
A private defence agency that raided someone home but found nothing would have not committed a crime but also lose much reputation for their incompetence. They would lose customers and lose income and perhaps even get beaten out by their competitors.
Private companies are regulated by the market and their reputation.
When the private police force arrive at the estate, the billionaire passes a message to them saying, "I didn't kidnap the kid, but I do believe strongly that my private property is inviolable, which is the organising principle of our anarchist society. If you attempt to violate my property, I will kill you and anyone else you send".
There isn't a magical force field that stops people aggressing against others. Like I said before they could do whatever they had the power to. They would be liable for their actions and face the consequences.
No state does not mean no laws or even governance, just the laws and governance would be support by voluntary means.
If I am suspicious of my neighbour being a murderer and decide to break into his house I am again liable for own actions. If I did indeed prevent a murder then obviously no action would be taken against me. If I was mistaken then I would be justly punished. Even in our current statist society this would be the case.
The fact that billionaires are not permitted to keep private armies, and that the state is equipped such that if there is a lawfully issued search warrant, they would not be in a position to resist it.
Why would billionaire want a private army? Doing so would signal he is up to something. Again a private group wanting to join a psychopathic billionaire is unlikely to do well in a free society.
No, these criticisms understand that criminality occurs in all classes of society, and that your anarchist society appears to sanction violations of private property whenever someone wants, and unregulated by any law.
The state violates private property rights through taxation and can do so as it has the monopoly on force.
If you refuse you are punished. You have no choice in the matter.
Private groups are voluntarily funded. They have no special privileges at all when it comes to others. If they are found to be aggressors they are criminals like anyone else.
The state is allowed to be an aggressor.
They are not able to "spend them however they want". The citizen renders taxes to a central body, and the decisions about how to spend those taxes are made by a government chosen by the citizens in the aggregate. That seems pretty straightforward and reasonable.
If 2 people vote to take the the 3rd man's wallet does that make it just?
You also claimed that if the police entered the billionaire's property and no crime had be committed, they would have committed trespass and destruction of property. How would such a crime be prosecuted? Or even decided upon as a crime? Where is the court system to prosecute it? Where is the impartial, central body that is not beholden to any interest except that of the law and the citizens in the aggregate?
They would have their own defence agency bring those wrongdoers to justice. Again they are liable for the own actions and have no special privileges.
Courts would be privately funded.
While it certainly seems odd to have private legal institutions it would not resort in completely different legal codes competing with each other.
Most people can agree on things like murder, theft and rape being wrong.
The obvious notion is that without a state there is no final arbiter of conflicts. However unlike the state, private groups will always face a cost if they keep pursing.
Original post by Comus
Again, it would be determined by the committees themselves in advance as to what would be considered sufficient consensus for a given subject matter.
By what process would somebody be allowed to sit on one of these committees?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?
- Green Party supporting Left Wing Terrorist Jailed
- UK equivelant of American cities...
- AQA A-level Drama and Theatre Studies (7262/W) - 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Would you rather...
- Your Perfect Country
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 3 - 7152/3 16 June 2023 [Exam chat]
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Sneaking Out
- Dropping out during the summer?
- Is not taking the maintenance loan silly?
- Mum wont let me get the money out of a bank account i have
- IAL edexcel psychology notes/tips
- Accommodation issue
- 2024 Applicant Thread: Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU) - C10
- Why do boys/men always look at me weirdly?
- Research project
- Janus Henderson Investors Associate Analyst Graduate Programme
Latest
Trending
Last reply 21 hours ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 4 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 21 hours ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 4 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
