9/11 - War or Crime?

[Guest]

As an anarchist, you presumably don't agree with the idea of having laws (and therefore criminals) or soldiers, so what's your point?

In market anarchy, there would be nothing wrong with simple, local standards of behavior and private courts to arbitrate disputes between persons that interact face-to-face. There would be nothing anti-anarchistic about private police or soldiers hired to protect individuals or private property.

My point is that I object to the United States Government initiating a new type of overriding law that is legislated, prosecuted and defined solely by the executive branch.

BTW, I assume, a priori, that a localized, peaceful market anarchist community would have virtually zero chance of being attacked by "terrorists", as popularly-defined.

[Guest]

Anybody read up on the Aztlan notion of, "We'll out-breed you, then out-vote you, then take over!"?

That's what's wrong with voting/democracy.

Think "France".

That's what's wrong with "countries".

Note that where there are large groupings of Islamics--England, Canada, e.g.--there is a peaceful call for them to install Sharia in those areas.

Key word here: "peaceful".

In France, during the riots and car-burnings, the French police were told, "You can't come here; this is OUR territory."

Who's territory is it? Remind me about what were they rioting, Art.

Consider the will to impose Sharia in some African countries, over the non-Arab portions of the populaions.

Consider that US foreign policies don't create the Islamic unrest in Indonesia.

I look at the totality of all this and figure it's a resurgence of the Islamic expansionism of the middle ages.  The Moors into Spain, the movement into the Balkans.

It's a war against western culture.  The methodology is different from any of those of the past, insofar as the word "war" itself is concerned.  And, actually, it's a collection of different methods.  Some of it's killing, some of it's just like what was done in the Texas of the 1820s and 1830s:  Immigrants from the US came to outnumber the Mexicans, and the new majority wanted a cultural and political change.

Art

All great points. I, personally, don't care what happens to a "country" or "culture" after I am gone. I don't intend to kill anyone to prevent future humans from running their lives any way they see fit. I still believe in personal defense, of course.

[Perd Hapley]

In market anarchy, there would be nothing wrong with simple, local standards of behavior and private courts to arbitrate disputes between persons that interact face-to-face. There would be nothing anti-anarchistic about private police or soldiers hired to protect individuals or private property....BTW, I assume, a priori, that a localized, peaceful market anarchist community would have virtually zero chance of being attacked by "terrorists", as popularly-defined.

Now what keeps the private police from attacking and enslaving such a community, and how would the whole system differ from Medieval fealty and feudalism?

Private courts?  Both parties would agree to adjudication?  And what weight would their decisions have?  What force would make their decisions meaningful?

This could be an interesting discussion.

[Guest]

In market anarchy, there would be nothing wrong with simple, local standards of behavior and private courts to arbitrate disputes between persons that interact face-to-face. There would be nothing anti-anarchistic about private police or soldiers hired to protect individuals or private property....BTW, I assume, a priori, that a localized, peaceful market anarchist community would have virtually zero chance of being attacked by "terrorists", as popularly-defined.

Now what keeps the private police from attacking and enslaving such a community, and how would the whole system differ from Medieval fealty and feudalism?

There is no utopia. Also, I don't know exactly how everything would work in a market anarchy.That is why there is the 5+ year-old Anti-State.com forum - to discuss these things.

 The police would be paid voluntarily by customers. Police firms that displeased the populace would lose customers. The populace would be at least as armed as the police and would outnumber them. The police might resemble current security firms like Brinks.

 How did Medieval fealty and feudalism work?

Private courts?  Both parties would agree to adjudication?  And what weight would their decisions have?  What force would make their decisions meaningful?

Maybe each contract would mention in which court future arbitration would take place. Anyone that refused to attend court or abide by the ruling would be considered to have relinquished his own similar rights and would be fair game to all.

 For instance, if someone took delivery of a good but didn't pay and didn't attend court, he would be publically stripped his rights to personal property. Anyone could take his property.

 If one assaulted another and didn't show up for court, he would forfeit his right to personal safety. He could be then treated like a marauding grizzley or other uncivilized animal.

 Boycott and shunning would be effective to make the offender have to move away.

[The Rabbi]

[

 How did Medieval fealty and feudalism work?

Not too good.  Which is why it became extinct.

[Perd Hapley]

There is no utopia.

I agree, that is, as long as human beings are in charge.  The expectation of a perfect world is unrealistic in political science, although one should hope for the best system.  

Also, I don't know exactly how everything would work in a market anarchy.

Good starting point; let's be honest about our ignorance.  I am not an expert in Constitutional law, and haven't read much Locke or Montesque.

The police would be paid voluntarily by customers. Police firms that displeased the populace would lose customers. The populace would be at least as armed as the police and would outnumber them. The police might resemble current security firms like Brinks.

 How did Medieval fealty and feudalism work?

I bring up feudalism because you spoke of private police or armies in the pay of individuals, and by extension, groups.  I wonder why the larger group or those with the best or largest army could not make slaves of a neighboring group.  This is what happened throughout history.  There were governments involved, sure, but these were only powerful individuals with wealth and military forces, perhaps with the backing of religious ideas.  I can't see how anarchy would last or even truly develop, as people naturally band together under good leadership for their own protection from real or perceived threats.  Under the feudal system of Europe, which began in an age of horrific Viking raids, everyone pledged loyalty to someone more powerful than they and often recieved loyalty from others with less resources.  Contracts were honored, which bound people to certain plots of land, and to give a certain share of crops, labor for road-maintenance, etc.  At least this is what I learned from a survey course of Western History.  I welcome any corrections or other perspectives.

Or, what if a large security force becomes respectable in the community and begins to run things.  Soon you have mafia rule.  

The populace would be at least as armed as the police and would outnumber them

The masses have always outnumbered those who opress them, so that doesn't help.  Being equally or better armed is desirable, but I doubt it would happen.  Why would you hire police and military that weren't better armed than those around them?  And why wouldn't this populace surrender to weapons control as other peoples have done?  Why would these people be more jealous of thier liberties than others?

Maybe each contract would mention in which court future arbitration would take place. Anyone that refused to attend court or abide by the ruling would be considered to have relinquished his own similar rights and would be fair game to all.

 For instance, if someone took delivery of a good but didn't pay and didn't attend court, he would be publically stripped his rights to personal property. Anyone could take his property.

 If one assaulted another and didn't show up for court, he would forfeit his right to personal safety. He could be then treated like a marauding grizzley or other uncivilized animal.

 Boycott and shunning would be effective to make the offender have to move away.

OK, with contract law, I suppose that might work.  They could agree on things ahead of time.  With criminal law, though, I don't understand this.  If you accuse me of stealing from you, what court decides?  You insist on your father as presiding judge, with your mother and siblings as jury.  When I refuse this court, your family declares me "fair game," and what recourse do I have?  What if one is a wealthy elderly widow, with no friends or family, accused by a family with money and hired security?  I suppose the community must decide who to side with.  Then the widow must stand her ground and lose all property or be sucked dry by those who will offer her "protection."

I suppose these things could and have happened with governmental systems in place, but I doubt your market anarchy will protect anyone's rights better than our Constitutional republic.  My view is this:  Someone will always have power over others; Government legitimizes that power, regularizes it, and, especially under popular governments, brings it under control.