Total waste of time.

Old Country Boy on September 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM

I guess that in your world, the only reason any company exists is because govt saw a need and ordered the company into existence?

Then how do you enforce laws?

Or are there laws?

Are there courts?

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:32 PM

I already explained how conflict resolution works.

I’ve read it, and I don’t see any difference between your system and a Republic. So let me rephrase.

What does Anarchy have that a Republic does not?

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Either you haven’t read it, or your reading comprehension is below that of a third grader.

The difference is choice. As I laid out several times. You have a choice of which defense organization you join, and you can change that choice at any time.

it seems likely that the political tide will always be manipulated by artful individuals able to play upon the misguided belief that we cannot exist in an orderly fashion without authority imposed by a ruling power.

Unfortunately, this same flaw exists in all forms of self rule, including democracy/republics.

why in the world does it receive valuable discussion time?

BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 8:32 PM

Because some people wanted to discuss it and it was on topic. No valuable discussion time was lost, no one was prevented from commenting. The thread was not hi-jacked.

I’m glad you are not running the world LimeyGeek. I don’t think even you would like the world you would create.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Hmmm….if you’ve truly read what I and others have written, and still make comments like this, you have utterly failed to comprehend. ‘Missing the point’ doesn’t do your failure justice.

I’m pulling the plug on this one.

Old Country Boy on September 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM

It’s possible. I saw it on Star Trek, TNG. Crusher Jr. nearly gets the needle for breaking a window (wow, what a coincidence) on some utopian anarchist planet (best costumes, evaaaah). First season, I believe.

All you need is a space ship that kills people for stepping on the wrong grassy area, and has a thundering voice.

“LET MY PEOPLE GO!”

Answer that question for yourself. Where has there ever in all recorded history been a group of people that lived in peace an harmony, for any substantial length of time with no form of government in place?

Only in La La Land, which exist exclusively in the minds of the average liberal.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Right, right. That was a nearly rhetorical question. Since the answer is obvious, and it equals BOs experience, why in the world does it receive valuable discussion time?

All this because some dunderhead broke a window?

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM

and

*sigh*

Another hijacked thread… and I so used to enjoy reading the comments at Hot Air.

Big John on September 8, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Hi Jack! Sometimes it’s so easy I can’t resist. I should hang out at KosKiddies and spin them up. They’re not nearly as nice……

A bit extreme, don’t want to damage any property…maybe small ones. Whatever happened to police dogs? Big, snarling, nasty, growling fresh-hippie-meat eating police dogs?

Just a thought.

University perfessers of the liberal arts type always think that protesting and anarchy is good, primarily because they live in a permissive fairyland that is encouraging of their mental deficiencies and protective of the consequences of their actiona.

- I have posted about the meaning of anarchy.
- About the origin of the concept of anarchy.
- About how the Left purloined a previously acceptable term.
- About how the Right has somehow learned that the term is a slander word.
- How the Left and most Americans have no concept as to the origin of anarchy,
- About literary references to help define anarchy.
- About the merits of agency and representational government.
- About my persoanl Faith.
- About getting some.
- About how close we can be towards an easy slide towards fascism because citizens see order as more important than individual rights.
- A bit about Ron Paul.
- A bit about libertarianism
- And, the idiots at UM need to be taken to task for using public funds to instill violence and vandalism.

But at no time did I speak to the “merits” of anarchy.

Just to make that point perfectly clear.

Now, then, if reading for comprehension is not a strong suit, then perhaps another venue would be more to one’s liking.

[Anarchy is] bad because of the inevitable result. I like to think the best of people, but you have to admit, given no restrictions and no superior authority to answer to will more often than not bring out the worst in people. Anarchism is a great idea in theory, trusting everyone to act under self-reliance and police themselves, but it rarely if ever works in practice.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Agree [gives Grue a fish]

Another hijacked thread… and I so used to enjoy reading the comments at Hot Air.

Big John on September 8, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Disagree, we are all on topic here. The “merits” of Anarchy is being discussed which is part of the post. We’re not talking Elvis or space aliens…. yet.

Another hijacked thread… and I so used to enjoy reading the comments at Hot Air.

I’m the problem you say? Me and people like me are the reason that we can’t all live in harmony with no government. Wow.

I’m just a little concerned that you haven’t thought this whole thing through and before I join your cause and agree to disband the Constitution I’d like to be sure that there will be a mechanism for freedom and justice and private property.

You are right that I see no way to accomplish those things without …. courts for example. But I don’t see any accommodation for courts in your system. It sounds like a free for all, a everyman for themselves situation, an only the strong survive situation. I don’t like it, its indeed anarchy which is chaos. I’m glad you are not running the world LimeyGeek. I don’t think even you would like the world you would create.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM

*sigh* OK….I’ll bite just one more time.

But there is no authority, you said this in your previous sentence

My previous sentence was : “No person, or group of people, can legitimately derive greater authority over others’ lives.” This sentence does not infer the absence of authority. If your mastery of english comprehension leads you to believe that it does, stop reading now and please don’t waste my time. Of course, if you follow my instructions literally, you’ll never read the end of that sentence, or this one, so now I’m just rambling to myself for no good reason.

I retain authority over my life. If I consensually grant authority over, say, my security to another entity (individual or group – eg. a private police force) then I still retain the right to revoke such an arrangement.

There is no reason that common law cannot be agreed upon from the basis of inalienable rights. Murder will still be a crime, as will theft, rape, arson etc. What will be notable is the way that the legal ’sphere’ collapses to a minimalistic set of laws protecting life and property.

In the interests of legitimacy, transparency in the enforcement and application of law would likely be paramount….not so far removed from what we see today.

The ‘fly in the ointment’, to my mind, are people like you. You seem convinced that only this magical entity known to you as ‘government’ can administer and enforce law, and preserve society. In the guise of ‘government’ you will continue to be sold on an ever-expanding set of ‘common sense’ laws that are ‘for our good’, and in doing so will bow further and further in submission.

People like you are the problem. The population simply hasn’t reached a critical mass of independent thinkers to be able to unshackle itself from such concepts.

In that sense, I agree that my ideas are ‘pie in the sky’. They aren’t gibberish however. Maybe one day we’ll all understand that.

it is about the legitimacy of authority, and how same may be consensually arranged.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM

But there is no authority, you said this in your previous sentence.

No person, or group of people, can legitimately derive greater authority over others’ lives.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM

This is why I say you are sold on nonsense, pure pie in the sky gibberish which is so very typical of leftist “thinking.”

I concur.

It is a pretty sad commentary on the overall effects of our public education system over the past four decades that there “civics” is not being taught in our schools, little if any attention paid to the fundamentals from which our present form of governance has evolved. Thus, the people are easy prey to those who would enslave them.

Is ours a perfect form of governance? No. It is a fragile attempt by those who believe in the inherent good qualities of mankind to form a union to preserve our rights to continue to seek a more perfect form of governance.

I think the Founding Fathers had this in mind. I would think also that the Founders studiously avoided any thought of establishing a government here in America that would simply parrot those in Europe. It would have been an easy choice to do so. Crown Washington as the new King. Proceed from there.

The Founders had faith in the people. Seems today, there are those who have no faith in the people.

On that note, I will be back later in the evening…have avoided a few tasks today that need to be accomplished.

No person, or group of people, can legitimately derive greater authority over others’ lives.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Then how do you enforce laws?

Or are there laws?

Are there courts?

A republic has a government. Anarchy has no need for government.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Various forms of government exist in many political architectures. Perhaps some of Maxx’s confusion comes from a failure to distinguish between governments as we commonly think of them now, and ‘government’ in the abstract.

An anarchical society has no centralised monopoly on authority (a la contemporary ‘government’), yet can consist of a patchwork of freely evolving and interacting ‘governing’ agencies and individuals. No person, or group of people, can legitimately derive greater authority over others’ lives.

Anarchy is not about “government vs no government” – it is about the legitimacy of authority, and how same may be consensually arranged. The only sense in which anarchy should be considered as meaning “no government” is in the context of the contemporary view of ‘government’ as a ruling authority – such a manifestation of an authority structure is deemed illegitimate.

I was raised that way

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Then you were taught, it didn’t come naturally.

it is the basis for my Christian ethic, my Faith.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Once again, then you were taught, it didn’t come naturally.

One cannot command loyalty, nor command goodness, nor command bravery, nor command Faith.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Our Lord commanded all those things, but adherence to those commands is voluntary and how well we do, will be the standard by which we are judged. But it doesn’t come naturally, our hearts are naturally rebellous and nobody obeys the commands perfectly.

I have found good people, doing good for no other reason that they seek goodness.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

There are some people like that, they are rare. Mostly the type you find are the very people who were causing all the evil around them. Those people will always exist, and a system of laws must exist to deal with them and you can’t do that without government. I believe what Jefferson said, That government is best that governs least. Yet some form of it is essential.