|
posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 12:16AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "wins" -- it can be anything ranging from peacefully ostracizing the "losers" from services, to physically enforced segragation, to violent bloody conquest. My gut tells me you're still brainwashed by statist propaganda, so you reactively jump to the most absurd scenario -- that disagreeing insurance companies will begin slaughtering each other. My speculation is that they would find it far more profitable to resolve disputes more elegantly.
Also, we have to be clear what we mean by "universal law" -- depending on the size of the jurisdiction (neighbourhood / city / region / continent), there may very well be governing bodies. Obviously, given such a pluralist population, you can expect a lot of complexity and grey.
But, you don't need to think everything out to the end, in order to make improvements right now. (Not that that's even possible.) So, for example, nothing is stopping doctors from collectively acknowledging that their funding methods are evil, and changing them to voluntary alternatives.
|
posted by dsk on December 9th, 2011 at 3:07PM
To reiterate, the notion that the strongest always win under Anarchy, is THE reason why I cannot embrace it. It's a deal-breaker. So if under Anarchy I am forced to live under the rule of the strongest, Anarchy is no different to me than any authoritarian system - it's all just semantics.
|
|
posted by dsk on December 9th, 2011 at 2:44PM
>Also, we have to be clear what we mean by "universal law"
"Universal" in the sense that it isn't opt-out. Anarchy only provides for "laws" that are voluntarily adhered to, which doesn't really make them "laws". For example, in cases of disputes, you either talk it out, or maybe you both (voluntarily) submit to binding arbitration, or maybe one party simply acquiesces to the other. All these options are actually available to people in present society and in fact, they are frequently used.
The problem occurs when the disputing parties are at such odds, that they will not voluntarily submit to binding arbitration. So under anarchy, if voluntary binding arbitration doesn't work, what's the alternative? The alternative is force. If you feel wronged because the person you lent money to isn't paying you back, then you take it back by force. On the other side, if someone is trying to extract money from you who you feel is not entitled to, you use force to prevent him from doing so. And what if you're a thief whose also the strongest (biggest muscles/gun/gang)? Then under Anarchy, you win every argument. Again under anarchy .. the strongest win every argument.
A universal judicial system/police force is there to prevent this occurrence. It's sole reason for existence is to remove the force option from personal dealings - so the strong and the weak are on equal footing. In our system, when all else fails an objective third-party (i.e. court) enforces a settlement, and the parties cannot use violent means to get around it - because the police/army is always stronger.
This is not an extreme example. This is a structural problem with Anarchy. Think about it this way, EVERY SOCIETY IN EXISTENCE STARTED AS AN ANARCHY ... but then quickly devolved into some sort of authoritarian rule. Anarchy creates a power vacuum that quickly gets filled by the strongest who then enforce THEIR rules and then you're left with an authoritarian system. Mafia is one example of a way this power vacuum can be filled. So Anarchy is inherently unstable.
Think about it, say we live under Anarchy, I believe in getting compensated for my music, you don't. There's really no way we can come to an agreement, you won't pay. Say I'm stronger than you are. If you pirate my work and not pay, I can just come and kick the shit out of you until you stop. What's your recourse?
Mexican gangs routinely kill bloggers who report on their murders - do you think that would change if there was no police force/army to protect free speech rights? It would be worse. Your free speech "rights" would only be applicable if the strongest allow you to practice them.
On the other hand, a capitalist-libertarian/minarchist starts with an authoritarian government and limits its power via objective universal laws.
|
posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 4:13PM
I'm not sure what the point of your first paragraph is. There is an option to opt-out of paying to murder Iraqi children in the present system? Or of opting-out of blatantly corrupt and criminal adult-food-prohibition funding?
Your view of conflict is painfully over-simplistic / childish / naive / propagandized. There are countless alternatives to violence, for resolving disputes. I already mentioned one very plausible general scenario (which is FAR more plausible then people whipping out their pistols), WHICH YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. So, even when I offer you tips to get your brain started, you still have trouble comprehending. The more I talk with you, the more I feel I'm talking to a wall. Please re-read what I wrote -- the alternatives before the bloody conquest alternative.
If you seriously believe the current system is fair, you are hopelessly delusional. The current system is almost completely corrupt by powerful private interests. The war on drugs, to take one of countless examples, is obvious *blatant* corruption. There isn't even a modicum of objective rationalization for it. It *flaunts* it's hypocrisy and contradiction to any alleged "constitutionality". It is naked evil. It doesn't even have majority support. How do you explain it's existance? Where is the objective third-party you fantasize about?
Your narrative of anarchy-to-statism is equally naive. I think a far more credible (but still overly simplistic) narrative of civilization is actually the reverse -- an ever increasing empowerment of the individual over the group -- that is, an ever increasing anarchization of society -- more individual choice and freedom and power.
In any case, you are using straw-man arguments: who says there will be a power vacuum? You do. By completely ignoring the things I/others write. (See my second paragraph.) People will always organize, and form all sorts of interconnected networks and support groups and protection services. It's true that the more popular ones will probably be more powerful, so your main hurdle is to explain how something popular and voluntarily supported will turn into a big bad monster. Please explain the steps you envisage, that would make this happen in a free market.
You provided the example of copyright enforcement, in your typical over-simplified brainwashed way. So, let me hold your hand, and help clarify a possible solution. First of all, we would all be part of some dispute resolution organization, for the reason I mentioned a number of posts ago. So, you probably wouldn't be allowed (by the terms and conditions laid out by your organization) to resort to violent retaliation willy-nilly. It almost certainly won't be a bloody free-for-all -- that's the beauty of *organization* -- there will be checks and balances. So, instead, you'll probably file a complaint with your organization, which will talk to my organization. Perhaps my organization also enforces copyright, in which case, I'll be suitably punished, by the terms I agreed to. Or, perhaps I'm in Sweden, and my organization actually fundamentally believes that ideas and information are somehow different and immune from normal property/contract law. It's possible. In that case, a number of NON-VIOLENT options are still available. Even before physical segragation. For example, perhaps your organization can begin ostracizing mine -- and you can refuse to do business with people from my organization. Depending on how popular the anti-copyright idea is, that can be a major blow to me and my people, in which case we'd be severely economically crippled, and highly incentivized to change. The fact that there is no physical violence with copyright violation makes the scenario that there will be physically violent retaliation highly unlikely. (On the other hand, you will note that violence is guaranteed in our current monopoly system, if a conflict ever arises.)
As I said before, there are countless recourses, and only your imagination is the limit to see how such conflicts can be dealt with. If all you can imagine is "kicking the shit out of people you disagree with" -- I would argue there is something wrong with you.
I won't even bother with your Mexico example. I mean, the only reason the gangs exist is *because* of Statism, specifically the drug laws, but also anti-free-trade policies. Moreover, white-collar gangs (DEA) routinely kill FAR FAR MORE harmless innocent mexicans -- but you overlook that.
Of course, the difference between minarchy and anarchy (which is simply how the courts and guards are funded) is almost negligible in light of the current monstrous evil that is The State.
(I also think your phrase: "universal objective law" is misleading, or possibly wrong. There is no "universal objective law" that mandates how big a court/police system should be, for example. Many will passionately claim that a big, strong, well-armed military is essential for freedom. Others might passionately claim that only a minimal presence can be constitutionally justified. Others might passionately claim that a nuke or two is the way to protect things. There is no "objective" court that can say who is right here. Your fantasy minarchy is *still* simply a minimal *subjective democracy* -- albeit a bit more enlightened.)
|
posted by dsk on December 9th, 2011 at 4:46PM
>There are countless alternatives to violence, for resolving disputes.
Yes there are. That doesn't answer my objection. Read on.
>If you seriously believe the current system is fair, you are hopelessly delusional.
I don't, but it has elements which are correct. This is why I advocate for minarchist-type system.
>Your view of conflict is painfully over-simplistic / childish / naive / propagandized.
Your view is utopian.
>You provided the example of copyright enforcement
It's not an example of copyright enforcement. It's an example of conflict resolution. You can sub-in any kind of conflict.
>First of all, we would all be part of some dispute resolution organization
If we are, it's akin to submitting to voluntary arbitration. If that's the case, there is no problem. We're good to go.
The issue occurs when we're not part of (the same, and it has to be the same) dispute resolution organization ... then what?
Let's keep going ...
>So, instead, you'll probably file a complaint with your organization, which will talk to my organization.
You're not answering the objection merely creating another layer of abstraction (instead of person-to-person dealings, you kicked it up a level to org-to-org - if you want, you can kick it up another level (x orgs)-to-(y orgs) - the problem will still exist).
Organizations are not created equal, some will be vastly stronger than others. If your org has 15,000 members and my has 15,000,000, how do you think negotiation will go (hint probably similar to the way negotiations go between a multinational mining corp and regional citizens)? Given that my org's security forces are 1000 times bigger and since I am a paying customers while you're not, they're loyal to me, not to you (bonus points, I am a influential/rich paying customer).
Is it inconceivable that my org will simply push yours around to get a settlement in my favour?
What if you opt-out and leave? Well, you're even more at the mercy of the big guys.
This is why I mean that Anarchy has an intrinsic, unfixable structural problem. The strong dictate terms ALWAYS.
Under a minarchist system, you set the government as the strongest entity and you neuter it via a strong constitution and democratic rule. It's not perfect, but the alternative is authoritarianism.
|
|
|
|
