“If I had my way, I’d destroy all the mosques and spread the whores around..."

[Perd Hapley]

Because an unhappy man would never cheat without legal prostitution?
 :rolleyes:

Save your snark.  freedom lover was suggesting marital infidelity as a solution, and that's what I'm responding to.

[Firethorn]

Save your snark.  freedom lover was suggesting marital infidelity as a solution, and that's what I'm responding to.

Before this I thought you were responding to me, and had a whole rant lining up.  Darn.

[Perd Hapley]

I was responding to you, but I'm not saying that the availability of prostitutes (legal or illegal) is going to wreck a marriage.  freedomlover said:

I feel bad when I read the letters in the paper from older men who don't get enough sex. That should never have to be a problem.

I'm disputing the idea that going outside the marriage for sex is helpful.


And again, I'm ambivalent about the idea of legalizing prostitution, so I'm not arguing against it.  I just don't see any economic benefit from having more brothels.  Now could we save money by ceasing to prosecute it as a crime?  I suppose, maybe.  But the economic benefit of MORE prostitution has not been demonstrated, I think. 

[MicroBalrog]

I feel bad when I read the letters in the paper from older men who don't get enough sex. That should never have to be a problem.[/quteo]

I don't see any implication here that these men are married.

[doczinn]

there would be no power structure in place in order to enforce certain basic societal rules regarding interaction, as in "don't beat Steve over the head with a large rock, rape his wife, then steal all his stuff."

Are you saying no-one would defend themselves? Or their friends? Or hire a security agency to protect their property? Or their neighborhoods? I'd say you're wrong.

In other words, it requires that everyone believes in the non-aggression pact in order to work.

No, it requires that people take responsibility for their own safety and security, and if not capable of defending themselves they either purchase protection or have a lot of friends.

Now, I have heard many different proposals from anarcho-capitalists that claim to rectify this problem, but each of them seems suspiciously like a government.

Yes, many of the arrangements that would arise would look and act a lot like governments do. But the difference is that it would be truly voluntary. My friends and I buy some land, build a neighborhood, and make the rules in that "city," and no outside agency is going to tell us what the rules must or may not include, and we can't claim to make the rules for property we don't own.

I have yet to see anyone sufficiently explain how to avoid these problems without either resorting to a government-like structure, or having everyone magically believe in the NAP.

So you admit that it doesn't involve some sort of utopian thinking."Government-like structures" probably. But on a purely voluntary basis.

[Firethorn]

And again, I'm ambivalent about the idea of legalizing prostitution, so I'm not arguing against it.  I just don't see any economic benefit from having more brothels.  Now could we save money by ceasing to prosecute it as a crime?  I suppose, maybe.  But the economic benefit of MORE prostitution has not been demonstrated, I think. 

Good point.  We'd save money by not trying to put the hookers in jail.  Personally, I think we'd also save money on the health care end - fewer people end up with STDs needing medical treatment.  Hookers with a powerful incentive to stay away from drugs, johns with incentives to go to the legal places, so on and so forth.

[Balog]

Good point.  We'd save money by not trying to put the hookers in jail.  Personally, I think we'd also save money on the health care end - fewer people end up with STDs needing medical treatment.  Hookers with a powerful incentive to stay away from drugs, johns with incentives to go to the legal places, so on and so forth.

Assuming the same people who are willing to work as pimps and whores will be likely to rationally pursue what is in their best interest is funny, but not in a "haha" way.

No, it requires that people take responsibility for their own safety and security, and if not capable of defending themselves they either purchase protection or have a lot of friends.

Until the guy with even more friends comes and kills most of you and enslaves the rest. It's a nice fantasy, and under theoretical perfect circumstances it might work. But proposing it seriously for America is laughable. And yeah, I know. One ancient culture did it for a while. Yay.

[Firethorn]

Assuming the same people who are willing to work as pimps and whores will be likely to rationally pursue what is in their best interest is funny, but not in a "haha" way.

The 'pimps' are out of business, much like how legalized drugs would put most of the illegal drug dealers out of business.

Basically, beings a legal provider of services has powerful economic advantages over the illegal ones.

Those that CAN'T stay clean, well, they're looking at even less income/customers than right now.

[doczinn]

Until the guy with even more friends comes and kills most of you and enslaves the rest.

And that's different than now....how, again?

[Perd Hapley]

Why would pimps and prostitutes suddenly change careers, after legalization? 

[Balog]

And that's different than now....how, again?

Because there is the certain knowledge that if you and a few dozen of your buddies get together and try to take over a town and rape and pillage, a whole hell of a lot of guys with guns and tanks etc will come kill you.

Most people don't have that "pioneer spirit" of being alone with no defense from the Indians but their own strong right arm. So the majority of people would flock to a strongman, and you've got the Africa/Afghani situation of tons of little warlords doing whatever they want. Human nature assures some form of governance. All any "anarcho-whatever" system does is insure that the system that comes up will be more prone to tyranny. Like I said, a nice fantasy but not compatible with actual humans in the actual world. 

[Perd Hapley]

It would quickly evolve into a system of patron-client relationships, with strong leaders becoming petty tyrants or warlords, court intrigues, weaker people dependent on the good will of the stronger, etc. 

[roo_ster]

It would quickly evolve into a system of patron-client relationships, with strong leaders becoming petty tyrants or warlords, court intrigues, weaker people dependent on the good will of the stronger, etc. 

[/quote

True, the empirical data looks like s**t, but it looks great on paper!

fistful, what you have described is analogous to feudalism...which is what the warlords in places like Somalia have set up in lieu of a central government or min/an-archy.  Some of them don't have the muscle to control more than a coastal town, so they go off a-pirating to make their living.  Randian heroes, they ar enot.

Power abhors a vacuum, so Hoover Aideed steps in with a band of goons to promise a falafel in every pot and to keep the kids off the lawn dirt.

[MicroBalrog]

It would quickly evolve into a system of patron-client relationships, with strong leaders becoming petty tyrants or warlords, court intrigues, weaker people dependent on the good will of the stronger, etc. 

Historically, that's just not what happened in the few anarchic societies we know.

Now, understand I am not a supporter of anarchy per se. Just like Nozick, I am a believer in minarchism as the superior method of securing individual rights. But I do not believe that anarchy equals a stone-age free-for-all. That is a utopian (in the original sense) conception of the nature of the beast.

[Perd Hapley]

Historically, that's just not what happened in the few anarchic societies we know.

But that is what happened in every other society.  There's a reason why anarchy is rare-to-nonexistent; human nature doesn't support that particular operating system. 

[MicroBalrog]

But that is what happened in every other society.  There's a reason why anarchy is rare-to-nonexistent; human nature doesn't support that particular operating system. 

When you take into account the last 99,800 years of human history, Federal Democratic Republics are also rare-to-nonexistent.

Look, anarchy is not my political goal.  However, I believe that in history/political science, we must at least sometimes contemplate it as a thought experiment, because our beliefs on what people would do in an anarchy reflect our fundamental beliefs on human nature.

[Regolith]

Are you saying no-one would defend themselves? Or their friends? Or hire a security agency to protect their property? Or their neighborhoods? I'd say you're wrong.

No.  What I'm saying is that those who want to be left alone will not outnumber those who want to rule others, in some form or another.  Thugs will build themselves into warlords, and then as soon as they've got enough people, they will come after you.  Unfortunately, being that us "leave us the ^&#$ alone" types are so few, we will easily be outnumbered, and even if we aren't outnumbered, getting "leave us alone" types to organize into an effective resistance without a government-like system would be like herding cats.

So, again, it comes down to getting the vast majority of the populace to believe in the NAP, which is not likely.

No, it requires that people take responsibility for their own safety and security, and if not capable of defending themselves they either purchase protection or have a lot of friends.

Which again requires a lot of people to believe in the same things, things that the majority of people currently do not believe in. 

Yes, many of the arrangements that would arise would look and act a lot like governments do. But the difference is that it would be truly voluntary. My friends and I buy some land, build a neighborhood, and make the rules in that "city," and no outside agency is going to tell us what the rules must or may not include, and we can't claim to make the rules for property we don't own.
So you admit that it doesn't involve some sort of utopian thinking."Government-like structures" probably. But on a purely voluntary basis.

Purely voluntary governments are still governments.

[Perd Hapley]

When you take into account the last 99,800 years of human history, Federal Democratic Republics are also rare-to-nonexistent.

Touche.     But I'm not sure that really helps your argument.  It just further demonstrates how bad people are at the whole freedom thing.  And one might also point out that none of these anarchist societies of which you speak have changed the world like this particular FDR has.  Have they lasted as long?  Made human rights/personal freedom into concepts that are, if not universally followed, respectable and desirable?  Have they produced world-transforming technologies? 

[MicroBalrog]

...I've always argued human beings are awful at the whole freedom thing.

(Of course, Icelandic anarchy has lasted as long, if not longer, than the United States. But I don't see what that imparts on my argument where I myself said, repeatedly  through this thread that I believe a Federal Democratic Republic is the best form of organization so far).

Where we differ - again - is our basic interpretation of what human nature is. Which is probably tied with differences of our differences of what morality is.

[Firethorn]

Why would pimps and prostitutes suddenly change careers, after legalization? 

I said pimps.  Didn't say that the prostitutes would change careers.

The pimps would lose out because they're no longer needed.  Any given prostitute/matron can set up their own shop. Some pimps might be able to make the transition into more of an 'agent' role, but not all.

On the whole anarchy thing - there's a reason I'm, at most, a moderate minarchist.  Government is good, in moderation.  I want to be able to report crimes to the police, have the courts determine guilt, etc...

I just want it to be really common knowledge as to what's a crime, and committing said crime to actually require a victim.

[Werewolf]

It would quickly evolve into a system of patron-client relationships, with strong leaders becoming petty tyrants or warlords, court intrigues, weaker people dependent on the good will of the stronger, etc. 

In other words - Feudalism. Yes. Makes sense. There is probably a historical precedent. Dark ages are about as close to anarchy as civilization ever got and feudalism evolved from that situation or maybe devolved from the Roman collapse.