A Mercenary Military?

[Len Budney]

The ultimate protection of the individual's freedom is the individual himself, armed and vigilant.

I agree. That is something that must be maintained, by steering the gov that way through the electoral process.

OK, now lets think that through.

"Mr. President, I insist that you protect my right to keep and bear arms! After all, how else can I shoot you if you turn tyrannical?"

"Um, yeah. Let me get right on that."

Any concession of special powers or immunities to anyone severely undermines that defense: one is accepting the manifest contradiction that one must defend oneself from the cops, yet isn't allowed to do so.

What are the special powers and immunities you speak of? Be more concrete.

In general, the fact that shooting a government official in self-defense is automatically a crime. Specifically, if I demand 10% of your income and enter your home armed to take it, you're allowed to shoot me. If a man with a badge of office does exactly the same, not only aren't you allowed to defend yourself, but if you try you'll find your home surrounded by tanks. Similarly, if I decide that I don't want you smoking in your own dining room, and I attempt to force you at gunpoint to comply, you can defend yourself against me. If a man with a badge of office takes the same action, you can't--and again, he's backed by an army. You know, that sort of thing.

Also, you are certainly allowed to defend yourself against bad cops.

Where "bad cop" includes any cop who tries to enforce laws against victimless crimes? So if, for example, I'm distilling schnapps for my own consumption, and a bad cop enters my home and tries to kidnap me for doing so, I'm allowed to defend myself? I didn't know that.

But by accepting the right of an agent of force to exist, with special powers you don't have, you've already given the whole game away. The USA PATRIOT act and the MCA were a done deal when the Constitution was inked. Once the machinery of power is created, freedom is doomed.

Absolutely not. Voters can vote in candidates that can strike down any such law.

There's a rich literature on why that can't happen in the long run. Empirically, try to find a government that hasn't steadily grown. Abstractly, it can't be done because the special interests are concentrated and the victims are dispersed. For example, if a senator decides to give me $300M for doing the nation the great favor of "just being me," I'm big in favor of that. That's only $1 from everyone in the country, though. Are you willing to start AmRevII over $1? Are you even willing to sue me? Let alone run for office or campaign to through out the bum who gave me the grant? No, you aren't.

Of course the government does that thousands of times over, and it does add up to real money, but targeted action against a particular bit of corruption will still only save you coffee money. Your choices are to take it up the tailpipe, or start shooting the bastards. The latter is even more expensive than the former--and dangerous to boot. You will not revolt. Meanwhile, the idealists in government dwindle over time because they can't compete with the scoundrels. The former have complicated ideas that involve actually thinking and stuff. The latter "feel yore pain." The latter will always win in the long run, just as the ruthless will always defeat the scrupulous.

When a majority wake up realizing that "government" does go away when you ignore it--as long as enough people ignore it--then the people will be de-sheepled.

Gov never goes away. Somebody is always in charge.

Government wants you to think that, certainly. But it clearly isn't true. If you choose to live as a free man, nothing stops you (except armed bureaucrats). If enough people choose to live as free men, the armed bureaucrats don't stand a chance.

Too many people have chosen to support their existence by forcible predation on their fellow man, though. Those people, which you call "bureaucrats," will put up a fight. Hopefully we can convince them all to give up quietly and get an honest job.

The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?

Whoops--you've just skipped a groove and decided you're an anarchist after all! 

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Depends what you mean by that.

If you take Hobbes very literally, then I would disagree with him, because violent mutual annihilation is not "ecologically stable". But, taken in a more general sense, he was correct - gov is a means of safer conflict resolution.

The so-called "Wild West" was not so wild after all... Pennsylvania colony existed in a state of anarchy for several years... Somalia

Correct. It is not a good example of anarchy. It had local centers of authority. You pissed off a town? They would throw you out. You came back? They'd give you the necktie. You'd cross a gang? They'd shoot you dead. All perfect examples of a larger superior organization (township, gang, "the law") violently eliminating the competition (you as a misbehaving individual).

Penn existed for several years only. It seems the concept failed when put to the real test.

Somalia is an example that fits well in my framework - competing organizations (the different warlords, gangs, and tribal groups) have near-parity in power and thus refuse to exhaust themselves in pointless fighting, lest a third party take advantage. They are waiting one another out. If a single group gets enough advantage, they will become the single government.

Protesters at Tiananmen Squareconstructed and operated a successful anarchist society for two months. (Ironically, they gathered to demand democracy, and seem not to have appreciated that they were actually enacting something better.)

Successful how? Clearly not as an organization. The commie gov crushed them. Two months don't even register as a spit in the ocean of human history.

Whenever people come to a four-way stop sign, or wait for a bus, or spread a beach towel, they demonstrate non-violent conflict resolution.

Based on the rules enforced by the gov. Many people will do the polite thing because they are programmed that way, or to avoid conflict, or out of altruism (Dawkins has interesting things to say about altruism too). But, there are also violent individuals that will push their way through or step on your towel too. Your anarchistic society cannot deal with them. If you try to apply a force against them as an individual, if one of them is stronger than you, he will kill you. If he is not, he will gang up with others. Guess what, they just made an organization and formed a bandit government. You are history.

That definition is singularly slanted in favor of the state: if "success" is roughly defined as "power," especially coercive power, then yes--totalitarian societies are the most "successful." But who cares?

You should, if you want to avoid being crushed by one.

I didn't say "only." But if you drop the "only," what's left is absolutely indisputable.

Be honest. You heavily implied the "only". It is the center of your argument.

What you can't claim is that we've tried anything else. Arguably, we couldn't have tried anything else prior to the 19th century: before that, practically everyone hovered on the brink of starvation. A handful of the most hardened anarchists might resort to a tribal structure in a survival situation.

Many organizations have existed before 1900 - autarchy, hereditary monarchy, empire, triumvirate, republic, limited democracy, oligarchy, theocracy, constitutional monarchy. They were not really "tried", they evolved due to circumstantial pressures. As conditions changed, one replaced another. How different they ultimately are is subject of discussion.

Many people in the world hover around starvation today as well. The only ones that may allow themselves to toy with "something different" are societies that already are well-fed based on their own evolved organization. I am not convinced that "trying something different" will not revert us to near-starvation. It certainly did with the commies in the 1920s.

The anarchists would be smart to organize into non-anarchists. Otherwise they would likely starve.

Yup. What hasn't been tried is unpremeditated, non-engineered, decentralized society. I don't know of any libertarians (or anarcho capitalists) who suggest that a centrally-designed society is a workable idea. The free market is the antithesis of that.

Re-read what you just wrote and see the internal contradictions. You want to try something that is unpremeditated and non-engineered. If you do not meditate or engineer, how do you know what it is? How do you know what you have or want? The minute you describe what you are trying to do, it is engineered and premeditated.

If there is anything unpremeditated and non-engineered, that is human society from the early historical perspective. They did not sit down and plan it that way. They did what they could to stay alive. Those who hit upon successful models lived, those who did not, died. Literally you are right - they did not "try it", but historically you are wrong - such societies did exist and evolved into being.

[Paddy]

What hasn't been tried is unpremeditated, non-engineered, decentralized society.

Sure it has.  Been around for centuries.  It looks like this

[Len Budney]

Depends what you mean by that.

If you take Hobbes very literally, then I would disagree with him, because violent mutual annihilation is not "ecologically stable". But, taken in a more general sense, he was correct - gov is a means of safer conflict resolution.

Interesting. 6 million Jews, 10 million kulaks, 25 million Chinese peasants, a couple million Iraqi refugees and up to a million dead, would beg to differ if they could. Or do you mean "most of the time, when it isn't busy slaughtering people by the million, it's a safer way of resolving conflicts"?

The so-called "Wild West" was not so wild after all... Pennsylvania colony existed in a state of anarchy for several years... Somalia

Correct. It is not a good example of anarchy. It had local centers of authority.

It looks like we need to clear up a misconception about anarchy. Anarchy doesn't imply the absence of authority. An anarcho-capitalist society would positively bristle with authority structures. I agree that the institutions you mention were not perfectly anarchic, but they still illustrate the point. You initially claimed that government is indispensable; now it looks like whatever example I cite, you'll point to something within that society and label it "government." If so, you should notice that you're making a claim which can never be falsified.

Penn existed for several years only. It seems the concept failed when put to the real test.

Check the history. The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over. I agree that the Pennsylvanians fell down: they should have strung them up.

Protesters at Tiananmen Squareconstructed and operated a successful anarchist society for two months. (Ironically, they gathered to demand democracy, and seem not to have appreciated that they were actually enacting something better.)

Successful how? Clearly not as an organization. The commie gov crushed them. Two months don't even register as a spit in the ocean of human history.

You've back to applying the statist definition of "success." It was a perfectly harmonious society. It did not fall to internal conflict as you claim it must have.

Whenever people come to a four-way stop sign, or wait for a bus, or spread a beach towel, they demonstrate non-violent conflict resolution.

Based on the rules enforced by the gov.

You're making a very strong claim, and I want you to pause and consider it. You're claiming that if we weren't all afraid of the government, instead of waiting in line for the bus I'd kill and eat the others. On what are you basing this? Introspection? Are you claiming that the only thing stopping you from murdering your neighbors is fear of arrest? If so, I'm glad I'm not your neighbor.

Many people will do the polite thing because they are programmed that way, or to avoid conflict, or out of altruism (Dawkins has interesting things to say about altruism too). But, there are also violent individuals that will push their way through or step on your towel too. Your anarchistic society cannot deal with them. If you try to apply a force against them as an individual, if one of them is stronger than you, he will kill you. If he is not, he will gang up with others. Guess what, they just made an organization and formed a bandit government. You are history.

That definition is singularly slanted in favor of the state: if "success" is roughly defined as "power," especially coercive power, then yes--totalitarian societies are the most "successful." But who cares?

You should, if you want to avoid being crushed by one.

Apparently you are saying that only the police stop you from a murderous rampage. That's spooky.

I didn't say "only." But if you drop the "only," what's left is absolutely indisputable.

Be honest. You heavily implied the "only". It is the center of your argument.

Nowhere near the center. Your argument implied that the durability of government demonstrates that it's the best way, as if we had tried and discarded the alternatives. I point out that a perfectly recognizable governmental structure has been our heritage since we were moles hiding from dinosaurs; it can hardly be said that we've seriously examined the alternatives. Such wasn't even possible until sometime in the last few thousand years, when man had both sufficient intelligence and sufficient technology to begin exploiting the division of labor.

What you can't claim is that we've tried anything else. Arguably, we couldn't have tried anything else prior to the 19th century: before that, practically everyone hovered on the brink of starvation. A handful of the most hardened anarchists might resort to a tribal structure in a survival situation.

Many organizations have existed before 1900 - autarchy, hereditary monarchy, empire, triumvirate, republic, limited democracy, oligarchy, theocracy, constitutional monarchy.

All indistinguishable. The only distinction on your list is whether the Archon had partners, and what sort of costume he wore.

Many people in the world hover around starvation today as well. The only ones that may allow themselves to toy with "something different" are societies that already are well-fed based on their own evolved organization. I am not convinced that "trying something different" will not revert us to near-starvation. It certainly did with the commies in the 1920s.

That statement is incoherent. Your argument that government is vital is that government nearly caused the extinction of its subjects in the 1920's?

The anarchists would be smart to organize into non-anarchists. Otherwise they would likely starve.

You appear again to be invoking the fallacy that anarchy equals chaos. That's wildly false.

Yup. What hasn't been tried is unpremeditated, non-engineered, decentralized society. I don't know of any libertarians (or anarcho capitalists) who suggest that a centrally-designed society is a workable idea. The free market is the antithesis of that.

Re-read what you just wrote and see the internal contradictions. You want to try something that is unpremeditated and non-engineered. If you do not meditate or engineer, how do you know what it is?

The Statist's Lament(tm).

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

OK, now lets think that through. "Mr. President, I insist that you protect my right to keep and bear arms! After all, how else can I shoot you if you turn tyrannical?" "Um, yeah. Let me get right on that."

That is just more self-defeating whining. The electoral process is not broken yet. Get off your butt and today convince just one person in RKBA and convince him to convince others. Tomorrow do the same. And so on. There would be a geometric increase and soon you will have CCW in your city. Then proceed on the state, and eventually national level. What stops you from doing that?

But, if you prefer to sit on your butt, complain, and indulge in anarchist fantasies instead, while gungrabbers and sozies march on, then who is really to blame?

In general, the fact that shooting a government official in self-defense is automatically a crime. Specifically, if I demand 10% of your income and enter your home armed to take it, you're allowed to shoot me.

Not paying your taxes is not self-defense. It is breaking the law. You still can affect things through the electoral process. If instead you choose to murder LEOs in performance of their lawful duty, then be ready to seize control of the gov by force, or die in the process.

Where "bad cop" includes any cop who tries to enforce laws against victimless crimes? So if, for example, I'm distilling schnapps for my own consumption, and a bad cop enters my home and tries to kidnap me for doing so, I'm allowed to defend myself? I didn't know that.

See above. You obviously think that every law is somehow an encroachment on your person, if you disagree with it, then you complain that your reaction is illegal. If you do not care about laws, what do you care if it is legal or not? If in your model power decides everything, then you cannot complain when that power is used against you.

There's a rich literature on why that can't happen in the long run. Empirically, try to find a government that hasn't steadily grown. Abstractly, it can't be done because the special interests are concentrated and the victims are dispersed. For example, if a senator decides to give me $300M for doing the nation the great favor of "just being me," I'm big in favor of that. That's only $1 from everyone in the country, though. Are you willing to start AmRevII over $1? Are you even willing to sue me? Let alone run for office or campaign to through out the bum who gave me the grant? No, you aren't.

Of course the government does that thousands of times over, and it does add up to real money, but targeted action against a particular bit of corruption will still only save you coffee money. Your choices are to take it up the tailpipe, or start shooting the bastards. The latter is even more expensive than the former--and dangerous to boot. You will not revolt. Meanwhile, the idealists in government dwindle over time because they can't compete with the scoundrels. The former have complicated ideas that involve actually thinking and stuff. The latter "feel yore pain." The latter will always win in the long run, just as the ruthless will always defeat the scrupulous.

All of the above is just more whining to justify you sitting on your ass and producing more whining. Yeah, corruption has always been a problem, and so have been statists wanting to expand power. But, the system is not yet broken and voters STILL CAN vote out the bums. All you are whining about is that it is difficult. Tough. Tanstaafl.

Government wants you to think that, certainly. But it clearly isn't true. If you choose to live as a free man, nothing stops you (except armed bureaucrats). If enough people choose to live as free men, the armed bureaucrats don't stand a chance.

How exactly do you envision living as "a free man"? And more importantly, how do you envision "free men" defending against "armed bureaucrats" without becoming "armed bureaucrats"? See above discussion of the power of organizations.

The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?

Whoops--you've just skipped a groove and decided you're an anarchist after all! 

Right. Everyone who does not like lice must be an anarchist. <roll eyes>

[Paddy]

The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over.

And therein lies the impetus behind the libertarian 'philosophy'.  They grieve only that they are not the predators.  If only that bothersome government, the one that protects the weak, the old, the infirm, were out of the way, the world would be theirs for the taking.

Libertarianism is, at its root, about predation.  Nothing more. 

[CAnnoneer]

Interesting. 6 million Jews, 10 million kulaks, 25 million Chinese peasants, a couple million Iraqi refugees and up to a million dead, would beg to differ if they could. Or do you mean "most of the time, when it isn't busy slaughtering people by the million, it's a safer way of resolving conflicts"?

No organization has ever survived by exterminating its members. The examples you give are examples of rival organizations engaging in violent power struggle to become or remain THE government. Nothing that is not covered in my model.

Moreover, endemic civil wars in Africa today show what happens when there is no single dominant government in a particular country - the resulting tribalism and constant warfare are bloodier in the long run.

Anarchy doesn't imply the absence of authority. An anarcho-capitalist society would positively bristle with authority structures.

What exactly does anarchy ("no authority") mean then? And what are these "power structures" other than rival organizations that will vie for power at the expense of everybody else? You want to destroy the central government and create a bunch of minigovs that will be just as dangerous, with the added "benefit" of them fighting one another. Why don't you move to Somalia then, or maybe Rwanda?

I agree that the institutions you mention were not perfectly anarchic, but they still illustrate the point. You initially claimed that government is indispensable; now it looks like whatever example I cite, you'll point to something within that society and label it "government." If so, you should notice that you're making a claim which can never be falsified.

I am not going to play semantics games. Gov means who is in charge. What is so difficult to understand about it? Yes, something or somebody will always be in charge. If they are in control, they are the government. The claim can be falsified by the unity set. An isolated individual can think he is the generalissimo and private, in fact every rank, of an army of one, but he needs his head examined.

Check the history. The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over. I agree that the Pennsylvanians fell down: they should have strung them up.

Precisely. The concept failed when put to the test. What "should have" happened is academic. History is about what did happen.

You've back to applying the statist definition of "success." It was a perfectly harmonious society. It did not fall to internal conflict as you claim it must have.

"Wouldn't it be a beautiful world if only <hated category> did not exist?!" More wishful thinking. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to present a model that works when ALL natural parameters are enabled.

Apparently you are saying that only the police stop you from a murderous rampage. That's spooky.

You'll have to walk us through to that conclusion.

I live in the real world and know for a fact that there are people out there that will eat you alive if they had the chance. Yeah, go ahead, call it "projection" to attack me without really refuting my argument.

Your argument implied that the durability of government demonstrates that it's the best way, as if we had tried and discarded the alternatives.

It is the way that has been the most successful among what was "tried". You can come up with any pre-engineered utopia you want. Go ahead and try to convince others to try it, then live it and come back to tell us how it worked out. My money says you'll be dead within a short time.

Such wasn't even possible until sometime in the last few thousand years, when man had both sufficient intelligence and sufficient technology to begin exploiting the division of labor.

Exploiting the division of labor. Hmmm. How do you propose you do that without a gov to enforce contracts and take care of criminals? Again we are back to engineered utopian fantasies. I am all ears. Please tell us. But don't whine when we point out why those premeditated societies would fail.

You appear again to be invoking the fallacy that anarchy equals chaos. That's wildly false.

Fine. Explain your "structure" to us, and its enforcement/maintenance. In a non-premeditated, non-engineered way, please.

[wooderson]

No organization has ever survived by exterminating its members. The examples you give are examples of rival organizations engaging in violent power struggle to become or remain THE government. Nothing that is not covered in my model.

Really, no. The Holocaust and the deaths of the Great Leap Forward certainly were not "rival organizations" vying for power. They are instances of those in power abusing those under them - whether out of paranoia (the GLF) or megalomania (the Holocaust).

[Len Budney]

OK, now lets think that through. "Mr. President, I insist that you protect my right to keep and bear arms! After all, how else can I shoot you if you turn tyrannical?" "Um, yeah. Let me get right on that."

That is just more self-defeating whining. The electoral process is not broken yet.

It's not a whine: it's an absolutely conclusive argument. If you think you can construct a system that invests a man with ruling authority and then forces him to act against his own interests, you're crazy. Kennedy's comments on the 2nd Amendment actually did follow the pattern I gave, BTW.

In general, the fact that shooting a government official in self-defense is automatically a crime. Specifically, if I demand 10% of your income and enter your home armed to take it, you're allowed to shoot me.

Not paying your taxes is not self-defense. It is breaking the law.

Before even engaging your argument, consider carefully the implications of your making it at all. You are attempting to construct a framework within which it is justified to forcibly take another's property (what we call "stealing"), to force others to act according to our will (what we call "slavery"), and to imprison (i.e., "kidnap") or execute (i.e., "murder") anyone who refuses. Of course you've been taught all your life that that's the way it is--just as English people are taught all their lives that aristocrats are their superiors, or gorillas believe without question that the alpha male can take your women if he wants her.

But what justifies aggression against another?

You obviously think that every law is somehow an encroachment on your person, if you disagree with it...

NO. The laws against rape, murder or theft are binding whether or not I agree. Double-check, and you'll find that in every case I cited laws that punish me for harming nobody.

How exactly do you envision living as "a free man"? And more importantly, how do you envision "free men" defending against "armed bureaucrats" without becoming "armed bureaucrats"?

Why does "armed" mean "bureaucrat"? Of course free men are armed! Self-defense is moral. The bureaucrats' aggression is not, but defense against them is.

The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?

Whoops--you've just skipped a groove and decided you're an anarchist after all! 

Right. Everyone who does not like lice must be an anarchist. <roll eyes>

You're missing the power and elegance of my reply. Your statement is the definition of anarcho-capitalism. If you really believe it, you have no choice but to be one. If you secretly believe that some lice are necessary, and some blood is a fair price to pay, then you are a host who allows the parasites to remain, just as you said above. Your own statement is the best definition of anarcho-capitalism that I've ever seen.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over.

And therein lies the impetus behind the libertarian 'philosophy'.  They grieve only that they are not the predators.  If only that bothersome government, the one that protects the weak, the old, the infirm, were out of the way, the world would be theirs for the taking.

Libertarianism is, at its root, about predation.  Nothing more. 

I think there is far more to it, but agree that a subsection of self-proclaimed libertarians are ultimately malcontents looking for ways to prey on others without interference. A related problem is the deep infiltration of libertarian circles by anarchists and provocateurs of different flavors.

[Len Budney]

Anarchy doesn't imply the absence of authority. An anarcho-capitalist society would positively bristle with authority structures.

What exactly does anarchy ("no authority") mean then?

Now we're getting somewhere! This is super-important stuff. Anarchy doesn't mean "no authority." It means "no ruler." BIG difference.

And what are these "power structures" other than rival organizations that will vie for power at the expense of everybody else?

Do you have a job? Your employer has authority. It's limited: he can't kill you, rape you, tax you or tase you. But he can make rules for his property, and he can fire you. The company is an authority structure that exists quite happily in an anarcho-capitalist society. Churches, families, fraternal orders, and organizations of every description and stripe are perfectly legitimate. None of them can enforce their will arbitrarily, but they can defend themselves and their property. In particular, they can evict, refuse to associate and shun. And if you attack their persons or property, they can use lethal force in self-defense.

A man might live a very regimented life under anarcho-capitalism: he obeys his priest, on pain of excommunication; and he obeys his employer, on pain of dismissal. He obeys his father, if he lives at home. He probably continues to obey his father after moving out, because he doesn't want the family to shun him. He obeys his superiors at the moose lodge, because he doesn't want to be stripped of his antlers. And he obeys the rules of the road, as set by the road's owner, of the shopping mall, as set by the mall's owner, and so on. An anarcho-capitalist society is bristling with authority because property owners have the power to evict, and all property is private.

You want to destroy the central government and create a bunch of minigovs that will be just as dangerous...

You're saying that your neighbor is as dangerous as the BATFE, because he can kick you off his land? 

I am not going to play semantics games. Gov means who is in charge.

Then I'm the government of my property, and my boss is the government of the office. Fine, if you want to misuse language like that, but you're setting yourself up for confusion.

Such wasn't even possible until sometime in the last few thousand years, when man had both sufficient intelligence and sufficient technology to begin exploiting the division of labor.

Exploiting the division of labor. Hmmm. How do you propose you do that without a gov to enforce contracts and take care of criminals?

You're saying I can't hire you to fix my car without police backing me up? That's silly! I propose to do it by striking a contract with you. If you violate the contract in a way that violates my person or property, I will exercise lethal force against you. If you violate the contract without violating my person or property, then I'll tell everyone in town that you're a welsher, and you'll never find work again. Meanwhile, I'll hire someone more reliable.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over.

And therein lies the impetus behind the libertarian 'philosophy'.  They grieve only that they are not the predators.

That's ridiculous, not to mention Orwellian. Explain exactly how respecting your person and property rights absolutely makes me a "predator."

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Really, no. The Holocaust and the deaths of the Great Leap Forward certainly were not "rival organizations" vying for power. They are instances of those in power abusing those under them - whether out of paranoia (the GLF) or megalomania (the Holocaust).

Actually, I believe the examples fit my framework perfectly.

The Nazis (an organization) believed that a rival organization (the "international bolshevik jewry") was undermining their country, culture, economy, and heredity. So, one organization violently dealt with another. You may disagree that the jews were an "organization", but that does not change the Nazi perception and the resulting actions taken. The communist party was certainly an organization and so was the gov of the USSR (which the Nazis believed was dominated by "bolshevik commissar jews", i.e. a subsection of their rival organization).

The leninists and stalinists wiping out the kulaks is another example of one organization perceiving another as the enemy and dealing with it violently. Lenin himself said that peasants were inherently counter-revolutionary, backward force, because they believe in private property. Also, taking into account the kulaks had the land, there was also a strong political and economic conflict to resolve. That the kulaks did not strongly organize before the stalinists swooped on them does not change the nature of the conflict. In fact I did say that better organized organizations would generally win. No surprise.
 
The situation was similar in these terms with the Red Khmer wiping out potential political rivals and Chinese commies swooping on perceived opponents during the cultural revolution.

[Paddy]

If you violate the contract in a way that violates my person or property, I will exercise lethal force against you.

If you think 'violation', or theft of property justifies your use of lethal force, you sir, need to be disarmed and restrained.

If you violate the contract without violating my person or property, then I'll tell everyone in town that you're a welsher, and you'll never find work again.

Unless of course 'everyone in town' already knows that you are deceptive in your business practices. Then none of them will do business with you again.

[Gewehr98]

Just a subtle reminder...

Let's play nice in here, ok?

[Len Budney]

If you violate the contract in a way that violates my person or property, I will exercise lethal force against you.

If you think 'violation', or theft of property justifies your use of lethal force, you sir, need to be disarmed and restrained.

I think it's clear what I'm saying. If your contract violation endangers my life, I'll defend my life. If it endangers my property, I'll defend my property; if in the course of defending my property you place me in fear of death or grave bodily harm, etc., etc...

If you violate the contract without violating my person or property, then I'll tell everyone in town that you're a welsher, and you'll never find work again.

Unless of course 'everyone in town' already knows that you are deceptive in your business practices. Then none of them will do business with you again.

That's right. It cuts both ways.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

You are attempting to construct a framework within which it is justified to forcibly take another's property (what we call "stealing"), to force others to act according to our will (what we call "slavery"), and to imprison (i.e., "kidnap") or execute (i.e., "murder") anyone who refuses. Of course you've been taught all your life that that's the way it is--just as English people are taught all their lives that aristocrats are their superiors, or gorillas believe without question that the alpha male can take your women if he wants her.

Taxes are part of the social contract. Gov inevitably has expenses. You get representation in exchange for the taxation. If you do not want to be taxed, pay your taxes and push for a law that will make a deal for you - you can refuse to pay taxes in exchange for your right of representation. But then, you have no say in what the gov does. How does that sound?

Also, please go ahead and patronize us when you actually propose something workable. Up to now, all you have done is 90% whining plus 10% stuff that was quickly shot down as impractical.

NO. The laws against rape, murder or theft are binding whether or not I agree. Double-check, and you'll find that in every case I cited laws that punish me for harming nobody.

If you do not pay taxes, but enjoy rights, services, and privileges, you steal from those that provide you with those by paying their taxes. That is theft.

Why does "armed" mean "bureaucrat"? Of course free men are armed! Self-defense is moral. The bureaucrats' aggression is not, but defense against them is.

So, your army of a few disorganized, self-willed, free-men anarchists is going to meet the organized, well-equipped, synchronized army of the state... Read up on Machno in Russia. He got thrashed so badly it is embarrassing.

The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?

Your statement is the definition of anarcho-capitalism. If you really believe it, you have no choice but to be one. If you secretly believe that some lice are necessary, and some blood is a fair price to pay, then you are a host who allows the parasites to remain, just as you said above. Your own statement is the best definition of anarcho-capitalism that I've ever seen.

There is parasytism and there is price of doing business. A parasyte gives nothing back to the host. A symbiote gives something back. We all get something from the gov, even if we do not wish to admit it. Therefore gov per se is not a parasyte, even if individual representatives of gov can be. So the relationship is symbiotic, not parasytic. We can argue as to how much is reasonable. We can and should identify the parasytes and take then out. However, killing the whole symbiotic system because of a few parasytes is counterproductive.

[Len Budney]

You are attempting to construct a framework within which it is justified to forcibly take another's property (what we call "stealing"), to force others to act according to our will (what we call "slavery"), and to imprison (i.e., "kidnap") or execute (i.e., "murder") anyone who refuses. Of course you've been taught all your life that that's the way it is--just as English people are taught all their lives that aristocrats are their superiors, or gorillas believe without question that the alpha male can take your women if he wants her.

Taxes are part of the social contract.

Exactly: that's the framework you adopt to justify theft, slavery, kidnapping and murder. I have lots of affection for Locke, but his "social contract" idea was all wet. A contract is a voluntary agreement entered purposefully. A "social" contract is the opposite of a contract: I don't sign it; yet it's enforced upon me. Your "social contract" is a fiction. I challenge you to prove its existence without resorting to (1) naked circular reasoning (It just is! It is!), or (2) might makes right (OK, try and break the law, and give my regards to your new husband).

Gov inevitably has expenses. You get representation in exchange for the taxation.

I don't want this "representation" you speak of, so I choose not to purchase any. Thanks all the same; try the guy next door. What? Watch where you're pointing that thing!

NO. The laws against rape, murder or theft are binding whether or not I agree. Double-check, and you'll find that in every case I cited laws that punish me for harming nobody.

If you do not pay taxes, but enjoy rights, services, and privileges, you steal from those that provide you with those by paying their taxes. That is theft.

Standard protection racket stuff. Yawn.

The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?

Your statement is the definition of anarcho-capitalism. If you really believe it, you have no choice but to be one. If you secretly believe that some lice are necessary, and some blood is a fair price to pay, then you are a host who allows the parasites to remain, just as you said above. Your own statement is the best definition of anarcho-capitalism that I've ever seen.

There is parasytism and there is price of doing business. A parasyte gives nothing back to the host. A symbiote gives something back.

And eh, what I give you is eh, protection, you know? It would be a shame if anything tragic were to happen to you... like waking up with a horse's head in your bed, or in a cage with your new husband, you know? That would make me very sad...

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Now we're getting somewhere! This is super-important stuff. Anarchy doesn't mean "no authority." It means "no ruler." BIG difference.

Instead of saying what it is not, tell us what it is.

Churches, families, fraternal orders, and organizations of every description and stripe are perfectly legitimate. None of them can enforce their will arbitrarily, but they can defend themselves and their property. In particular, they can evict, refuse to associate and shun. And if you attack their persons or property, they can use lethal force in self-defense.

So, in your society an order of nuns will be placed in the same tank with a violent gang of reprobates armed to the teeth, and they will 'work things out' by balance of force? This is a perfect example why it does not work. The stronger organization will prey upon the weaker ones. The nuns will end up beaten, raped, tortured, robbed, and killed.

A man might live a very regimented life under anarcho-capitalism: he obeys his priest, on pain of excommunication; and he obeys his employer, on pain of dismissal. He obeys his father, if he lives at home. He probably continues to obey his father after moving out, because he doesn't want the family to shun him. He obeys his superiors at the moose lodge, because he doesn't want to be stripped of his antlers. And he obeys the rules of the road, as set by the road's owner, of the shopping mall, as set by the mall's owner, and so on. An anarcho-capitalist society is bristling with authority because property owners have the power to evict, and all property is private.

I hear a lot of "obey". What happened to the "free-men"? You want to replace one presumed tyrant with a thousand small ones.

Also, you still do not explain how this society is stable against takeover by a few violent, determined, shrewd well-armed criminals, human nature being what it is. Such guys would not give a crap about any of your distributed power structures, because they will establish their own. They will kill everybody who resists, and make an example of their families and friends. Human nature being as is, most will shut up and toil under the new administration. You are back to square one.

Then I'm the government of my property, and my boss is the government of the office. Fine, if you want to misuse language like that, but you're setting yourself up for confusion.

You are facetizing. Gov is who is in charge in society, not your office or closet. In fact, a more repressive autocratic gov would say that you make use of your closet, or in fact still live, only because they let you.

You're saying I can't hire you to fix my car without police backing me up? That's silly! I propose to do it by striking a contract with you. If you violate the contract in a way that violates my person or property, I will exercise lethal force against you. If you violate the contract without violating my person or property, then I'll tell everyone in town that you're a welsher, and you'll never find work again. Meanwhile, I'll hire someone more reliable.

Right. So you think you can become the gov yourself and enforce the contract with Ringo. Ringo says "ok", then come back with a few amigos the next day and kills you dead. Then he takes your stuff, hires a few more do-no-goods, they move to your neighbor, do the same to him. Etc. Soon, Ringo has a huge force of marauders that plunders the countryside, while the "good anarchists" get killed off one by one. It has happened before.

[CAnnoneer]

Exactly: that's the framework you adopt to justify theft, slavery, kidnapping and murder. I have lots of affection for Locke, but his "social contract" idea was all wet. A contract is a voluntary agreement entered purposefully. A "social" contract is the opposite of a contract: I don't sign it; yet it's enforced upon me. Your "social contract" is a fiction. I challenge you to prove its existence without resorting to (1) naked circular reasoning (It just is! It is!), or (2) might makes right (OK, try and break the law, and give my regards to your new husband).

There is no circular reasoning. You sign the social contract by choosing to continue to live in this country. You do not like the laws and are too lazy to try to change them by the established process. Fine. Nobody stops you from moving out. Go live on a desert island by yourself. You can draft your own constitution and read it to the monkeys and parrots in the jungle. Just don't bring anybody with you, because you will immediately be subject to another social contract.

I don't want this "representation" you speak of, so I choose not to purchase any. Thanks all the same; try the guy next door. What? Watch where you're pointing that thing!

If you do not want to be represented, then the gov moves on without you. They decide that everyone in the country must pay taxes. Including you. You don't like it? Too bad. You got no representation. Now you got only taxation.

Standard protection racket stuff. YawnAnd eh, what I give you is eh, protection, you know? It would be a shame if anything tragic were to happen to you... like waking up with a horse's head in your bed, or in a cage with your new husband, you know? That would make me very sad...

Whether you admit it or not, you use a lot of gov services. You just do not want to pay for them. If you do not need them, why not move to broken countries without gov to extort you. You are a tough guy, aren't you? What are 20-30 guerrillas with AK-47s and matchettes? You will certainly prevail.

[Len Budney]

Exactly: that's the framework you adopt to justify theft, slavery, kidnapping and murder. I have lots of affection for Locke, but his "social contract" idea was all wet. A contract is a voluntary agreement entered purposefully. A "social" contract is the opposite of a contract: I don't sign it; yet it's enforced upon me. Your "social contract" is a fiction. I challenge you to prove its existence without resorting to (1) naked circular reasoning (It just is! It is!), or (2) might makes right (OK, try and break the law, and give my regards to your new husband).

There is no circular reasoning. You sign the social contract by choosing to continue to live in this country.

That is circular: you haven't proven yet that it exists and is binding. I can as easily say that by continuing to breathe, you're agreeing to give me your firstborn.

I don't want this "representation" you speak of, so I choose not to purchase any. Thanks all the same; try the guy next door. What? Watch where you're pointing that thing!

If you do not want to be represented, then the gov moves on without you.

And still sticks me with the bill.

They decide that everyone in the country must pay taxes. Including you.

Circular again. They get that right where? From this "contract" of yours that I never agreed to. I think I'll name your firstborn "Hoss." Unless it's a boy.

Standard protection racket stuff. Yawn... And eh, what I give you is eh, protection, you know? It would be a shame if anything tragic were to happen to you... like waking up with a horse's head in your bed, or in a cage with your new husband, you know? That would make me very sad...

Whether you admit it or not, you use a lot of gov services.

Notably, roads. But you can't blame that on me: they stole the roads, leaving nobody any choice but to traverse their stolen property, and then claimed that our passage constitutes consent. That is a classic Mafia tactic, you know. When I call it a "protection racket," I mean that quite literally. But those "services" that I'm "forced" to use don't imply consent, or justify anything.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

That is circular: you haven't proven yet that it exists and is binding. I can as easily say that by continuing to breathe, you're agreeing to give me your firstborn.

Rules exist as laws. You choose to obey them or to break them. If you obey them, in exchange you avoid punishment and receive certain services. If you choose to break them, you are punished in various ways. That is the practical definition of social contract - the membership rights and responsibilities in a human social group.

You can certainly choose to cancel your membership, in which case the club will cancel your rights and privileges and throw you out.

You can also choose to work within the club as a member, convincing other members in supporting your cause and changing the club rules.

This is the framework of the argument. It remains for you to determine how you fit in.

And still sticks me with the bill.

Membership fee. See above options.

Circular again. They get that right where? From this "contract" of yours that I never agreed to. I think I'll name your firstborn "Hoss." Unless it's a boy.

Through a bad practice in current club rules, kids of members automatically become members. I consider this very stupid. Citizenship should be earned, not drawn out of a hat. But, back to your situation, you are free to leave the club and cancel your membership. Why don't you do it? Nobody is stopping you. You can go out there and establish your own club. 

Notably, roads.

You are using far more than roads. You can drink the water and breathe the air without getting diseases or dying prematurely because of gov ecological regulations. You eat food without getting sick because of safety standards. You and your family are not (generally) assaulted, robbed, ripped off, or killed on the street, because 3 million murderers, rapists, crooks, gangbangers, etc. are kept under lock and key, day and night. You are not enslaved by foreign dictatorships because of the national military. You enjoy enforcement of contracts and the multitude of economic, social, and technological boons that come out of it, because of gov enforcement of the rules.

The only way you can live free of any gov is to pick up the lifestyle of Robinson Crusoe, and even then, you'd better make damn certain nobody ever finds your island. So long as you want to live in a society, you will be subject to its government. If you believe a functioning cooperative human society is possible without any government, please provide us with its blueprints and be ready to answer the counter-arguments.

But you can't blame that on me: they stole the roads, leaving nobody any choice but to traverse their stolen property, and then claimed that our passage constitutes consent. That is a classic Mafia tactic, you know. When I call it a "protection racket," I mean that quite literally. But those "services" that I'm "forced" to use don't imply consent, or justify anything.

So, you use gov services because you are forced? You are not - see above. Robinson Crusoe pays no racket money to anybody. You have the choice of taking up his lifestyle. There are hundreds of islands out there, devoid of human population.

[Len Budney]

That is circular: you haven't proven yet that it exists and is binding. I can as easily say that by continuing to breathe, you're agreeing to give me your firstborn.

Rules exist as laws. You choose to obey them or to break them.

Circular: you keep claiming without proof that I'm bound by them.

If you obey them, in exchange you avoid punishment...

Might makes right.

If you choose to break them, you are punished in various ways. That is the practical definition of social contract...

So you're saying that in prison you are part of a social contract to be sodomized? After all, in exchange you avoid savage beatings; if you choose to resist, you are punished in various ways. Indeed, your description aptly describes how the Mafia works as well.

This is the framework of the argument. It remains for you to determine how you fit in.

Might makes right, again.

Circular again. They get that right where? From this "contract" of yours that I never agreed to. I think I'll name your firstborn "Hoss." Unless it's a boy.

Through a bad practice in current club rules, kids of members automatically become members.

Says who? Oh, right: says the club's management. Whose authority to make such proclamations is in dispute. Once again: circular.

Notably, roads.

You are using far more than roads. You can drink the water and breathe the air...

Finally a break from circularity and might makes right: now government is God, and gives us air to breathe, warm summers and fruitful harvests. I can hear the music now.

So, you use gov services because you are forced?

Yes. They're here uninvited, and then claim credit for the air I breathe, the warm summers and fruitful harvests I enjoy, and a great deal more besides. They try to misrepresent their coercion as my consent. Fortunately, I'm not that easily fooled.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Sorry, Len, at this point you have abandoned rationality and are just ranting/emoting. You can go ahead by yourself.

[Len Budney]

Sorry, Len, at this point you have abandoned rationality and are just ranting/emoting. You can go ahead by yourself.

I'm happy to stop, since we're getting nowhere, but I have neither ranted nor emoted. You assert that certain people have the moral right to expropriate my property and, if I refuse, either to kidnap or kill me. I deny it. You have offered no proof except the repeated assertion that "there are laws," or "there's a social contract," etc., which are the circular arguments I predicted. You also pointed out that if I do resist, they will take my property by force and/or kidnap and/or kill me, which is the "might makes right" argument that I also predicted.

There's nothing irrational about pointing out the flaws in your argument. I even tried to save you time by pointing them out beforehand.

If you're bored, by the way, you might want to meditate on this. Truth said in jest.

--Len.