CLEAR JOHNNY! Y U NO WANT GOVERNMENT?!?

#557

Is the decision by the lower status person to go along with that decision voluntary, or does the higher status person get to use force to enforce his decision?

Well, you know, one of the points I want to make is that "force" versus "voluntary" is a continuum, not two totally different things. At one extreme, the boss shoots the subordinate for insubordination. At another extreme, the boss rolls over and says, okay we will do it your way, Mr. Little Man.

In between the extremes there are things like, raised eyebrows, bitching behind Mr. Little Man's back, giving Mr. Little Man a written training document that will go in his personnel folder, a black mark on Mr. Little Man's annual performance review, deciding Mr. Little Man won't get that Christmas Bonus like he hoped, suspension, and the ol' pink slip.

If everyone could just act in the way dictated by anarchy advocates, this anarchy idea might work out as they envisage.

It just relies on everyone abandoning any other ideas, laws, means of organization, and aspirations.

So, patently, it will never exist, save that it devolves into a war that ends in something other than anarchy. It could only exist with oppressive force, authority and mind-control to enforce anarchy. Is that anarchy?

We know you love anarchy, and think it's cool, but would it be to much to ask for anarchy advocates to come up with some sort of new idea not based on utopianism before writing any more on the topic?

I promise not to post any more on the topic, if you can do that.

Please.

You don't like inconvenience? Oh you are going to love the daily negotiation of survival in a condition of anarchy.

Power hierarchies are default agreements concerning conflicts. If some conflict can't be solved by mutual agreement, the powerful party gets what he wants and the weaker party must go along with that.

Governments are default social agreements. Sorry that no one knocked on your door, AGG, to see if you, personally, were cool with rules about 12 jurors rather than 11 or 13, or 2 Senators for each state rather than just 1. Oh well. We're all kinda in the same boat.

No it is going to be awesome. The Supermen from the North shall walk amongst us again.





Competition shall cull the herd of the weak allowing the strong to dominate in glory.

Camp.

Concentration camp.

Mongolian overloards contemplating their invasion and pwnage of Anarchistan, once the homeland of poor, hungry, Karen Carpenter.

Hitler - could he have foreseen this? Was this music video always his ultimate goal?

Ok, I'll play the devil's avocado here. When the overlords move in, "we" anarchists would refuse to negotiate with them. Or some of us would. Then "we" would have a war, the best outcome of which that we could hope for would be, sadly, anarchy. Then "we" would take the Mongols' stuff. Then something else would happen.

To transform a nation you must inspire teh yoof with te awesome plan. Bowie understood this, and felt sympathy for Hitler.

There are people who take the chaos magic meme seriously and they view mass media propaganda as a kind of magical working. I suspect David Koch is a kind of magician. He did go through a lot of women before his marriage, as those sex ritual magic types tend to do.

But he's no David Bowie.

What is anarcho-capitalism if not a magical working of the chaos genre? It is 100% a dream of a better world without any actual working models.

Shhhh!!!!!! You will spoil it!! It doesn't work if you don't believe it.

Don't worry. Magick is involved.

The guy who wants to privatize all our roads, Walter Block, is an envelope-pushing propagandist.

Is it me, or does he give off a pervy vibe? Not saying sexual predator, but I would not allow my daughter to babysit at his house.

*********
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Block

"Voluntary slave contract"[edit]

In an essay on "inalienability" of natural and legal rights, Block defends what he calls a "voluntary slave contract", arguing that it is "a bona fide contract where consideration crosses hands; when it is abrogated, theft occurs".

Productivity of blacks and women[edit]

In November 2008, James Gill wrote in the Times-Picayune that, in a controversial lecture given at Loyola College, Baltimore, Block asserted that blacks and women were paid less than whites because they are "less productive".[18][14] In the lecture, Block defended his views on women by alleging that, among younger and unmarried women, there is virtually no income disparity.[18] When asked by an attendee to explain the difference in productivity between blacks and whites, he stated that as an economist he was not qualified to explain the disparity. Block did offer two thoughts that might account for the disparity: first, what he called the "politically correct" explanation, or socioeconomic disparities and historical injustices towards blacks; second, the "political incorrect" explanation, or "lower black IQs".[18]

...In response to the criticisms, Block said he, "regards sensitivity as the enemy of intellectual inquiry and truth."[18][14] In a December 2008 article, Block wrote that the lessons he had learned from the incident were regarding the need for tenure if one wants to speak out, the wisdom of Murray Rothbard’s words that "it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects" while remaining ignorant of economics, and the importance of Ludwig von Mises’ motto: "Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it."[21]

Highway privatization[edit]

Block believes that government management of roads and highways is not only inefficient but also deadly. He argues that "Road socialism" causes the deaths of more than 35,000 people in the United States each year. And, although many people blame highway deaths on alcohol, unsafe vehicles, or speeding, Block lays the blame on the government officials who manage the highway system. "It may well be that speed and alcohol are deleterious to safe driving; but it is the road manager’s task to ascertain that the proper standards are maintained with regard to these aspects of safety. If unsafe conditions prevail in a private, multistory parking lot, or in a shopping mall, or in the aisles of a department store, the entrepreneur in question is held accountable."[22]

Punishment of statists[edit]

Block has written two papers about punishment of those engaging in "statist, governmental or other gangster activity". In them he discusses how a libertarian society would deal with former statists and others, including issues like restitution of land taken through eminent domain and possible retribution against governmental officials and perhaps others who cooperated in criminal activity. He describes rules by which libertarian "Nuremberg Trials" might operate.[23][24]

Evictionism (in contrast to abortion)[edit]

According to Block's moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of the eviction of the fetus from the womb, and the killing of the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block supports a right to the first act, but, except in certain circumstances, not the second act. Block believes the woman may legally abort if the fetus is not viable outside the womb, or the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus, and no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.[25]

He also has written on finding a compromise between those who believe stem cell research is murder and those who favor it. He applies a libertarian theory of private property rights to his premise that even fertilized eggs have human rights and that the relevant issues are competition between researchers and those who wish to adopt the eggs.[26]

"Negative homesteading"[edit]

Block has theorized on whether a person defending themselves can harm a human shield or hostage used by an aggressor while in an act of self-defense. Block holds this is not legitimate but aggression against the kidnapped hostage who is innocent in the situation. Block calls this "negative homesteading theory."[27][28]

The Tea Party is a recognizable magickal working for those with eyes to see.

What I am taking from this is that to you:
a boss is using force when he tells his employee what job he is to do. IOW, if my boss tells me to mop the floor, then he is using force on me.

Is that an accurate restatement?

Your reading skills are somewhat suspect.

Explain the bold please. What default agreements? How can there even be a 'default agreement' since and agreement means we have met, discussed the issue and come to an understanding.

The second sentence is describing thuggery. In fact, it is modern America you are describing. The rule of law is a different animal.

They are neither social nor agreements. An agreement is a meeting of the minds, No meeting was ever called, no agreement was ever reached. So there was nothing social about it, and no agreement was reached.

And since they did not knock on my door to ask if i agreed, they failed in their due diligence to address my concerns
If they want my agreement, it must be explicit., otherwise we don't know what we've agreed to.

Not really. He took role-playing a character as a pop star to an extreme limit in his "Thin White Duke" period, and became more than a little psychotic. He pulled out of that, though.

Bowie himself hated that character.

He might have said that he hated that character. But in his teens and twenties he was very interested in the mystical aspects of the Nazi movement. A lot of rockers were in those days --and still are today. Hitler's use of mass media and public ritual set a standard for blowing everybody's mind that hardly any performer has ever come close to matching.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "default agreement" or anything symbolizing that everyone was consulted.

I'd just call it a "rule" and I happen to think we need them. Do you think everyone should be consulted on rules like we drive on the right side of the road or we drive on the left side of the road? What if some guy decides "you're not the boss of me" in whatever country and just decides he's going to drive on the wrong side of the road at 100 miles an hour into oncoming traffic?

Should society have no way of stopping that guy? Or do we just clear up the wreckage afterwards and clean up the bodies of that guy and the family he ran into?

Who wasn't? And frankly, anyone who isn't is missing a lot of the origins of modern "public relations." Ever seen Triumph of the Will? Ever notice that the national conventions of both parties in the United States and their promotional videos look almost exactly like it, except in color?

People, and Americans in particular, at least if they don't actually admire the Nazis, like some seem to do, seem to blame their evil on some uniquely German moral flaw. Interesting, since Germany was one of the shining beacons of the Age of Enlightenment.

So I can frankly forgive Bowie for his fascination with Thule and other shit. Just as I forgive Lemmy, for less intellectual reasons, for his collection of Nazi paraphernalia. Because he rocks.

Bowie got pretty close, at least as rockers go. I even have a cat named Bowie, though someone else named him.

One day, I hope, Bowie will tell us more about how all the Spiders from Mars wound up in Scientology.

It's odd that I have agreed dozens of times that we need rules, and people keep bringing it up as if it is new

Asked and answered, counselor.

The owner of the road would decide. And you do realize that the decision to drive on the left or right was made anarchically, AFAIK. That is, it was simply custom become law.

What happens when someone does that now? Usually we see it on COPS a few months later. It is a solvable problem. If he violated the rules of the road, he will be fined by the owner of the road, or sued by those he inconvenienced. The convenience of access to roads will keep those problems to a minimum.

People do not normally act as you suggest, so it not really necessary to explain how every little detail will be handled.

It is not society that is involved, which is one of the distinctions that MUST be made. Society is in your head. It is a concept we use to talk about things. It doesn't exist, except as a linguistic shortcut.

The issue is whether the owner of the road gets to decide how his property is used, and how he can enforce his rights.

It's pretty obvious to people that roads are a GOOD THING and should exist. People also want to make money. A good way to make money is to provide a good product or service at a competitive price. All this is siply economics, and if people are allowed to act they will find solutions. That includes roads.

Another part of simple economics involves insulating one’s company from market ups and downs and the perils of competition, usually by making sure the competition is never any real threat to your business model.

In practical terms, I think this security pressure would mean that the strongest road company in some geographic region would gobble up all the good roads as quickly as possible. Then not so much the competition.

Then there’s the issue of what to buy for the guy who has everything --e.g, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Probably Rhode Island’s roads. That would be a pretty nice Eid gift.

It occurs to me that I like to drive on roads that have hardly any traffic. So if I were a member of some wealthy oligarchy, I’d set the cost of road travel ridiculously high. Then I’d establish a mutual trust with my fellow fat cats. Everyone paying fees into the trust would get the money back through dividends. So it wouldn’t matter how much the fees were for us fat cats. We’d set them just high enough to keep the traffic low.

Hard working employees of our companies would be issued passes for limited road use, such as getting to and from work in car pools. Otherwise, fuck them they can walk.

OMG I think I just solved Global Warming.

Once a class of hereditary uber wealth becomes established, you get something like apartheid. Rich people fear the poor and do not want to socialize with them. Good luck reforming that situation without bloodshed.

Are those rules published somehow? Or do people use their psychic powers to comprehend them?

I bet there is probably a rule against murder in Kochistan. Nonetheless, I imagine it might be in someone’s best interest to murder another person in cold blood. Let’s say, for example, a guy with a big family wants his neighbor’s land for a couple of his children who need to start their own family. The neighbor is a crotchety old gentleman nobody much cares for. No relatives. So bam! shot to the back of the head and now the house goes to the newlyweds.

So it shall be in a land that prides itself on competition, independence, and not being out-exchange.

Here I will take the anti gov guy’s side in answering the murder question because I am bord.

AGG: "Derp, there is a rule in Anarchistan that you can’t initiate aggression. You can only respond aggressively to someone else’s aggression toward you."

Me: Oh yeah right, there is a rule against aggression. Well in this case, the patriarch of the large family had a long grudge against the old geezer neighbor for refusing to make a deal on the property. There were many hurt feelings for other reasons as well. So the patriarch got to viewing the neighbor as a suppressive person and a degraded being. He thought about all the resources the neighbor consumed that would have been better used by other people. He slowly convinced himself that his neighbor was, in fact, stealing from better people, simply by existing. So the death was justified as both a way to help better people and a way to put a miserable old person of no use to anyone --a perpetual thief, really-- out of its misery.

Indeed.

So, you can respond to aggression with aggression.

"Ok, you aggressed too much in response to my aggression."

"No, you're in the wrong you."

"No, you are."

"People, come to my side and out aggress this guy."

"Are you kidding? I'm with him."

"He killed my son!"

"I'm his son."

It's elementary that this scheme results in payback and huge levels of mortality from violence. You can see it in New Guinea, for example.

"He killed my dog."

"I did that because you raped that woman."

"What's that to you? She consented."

"She was below the age of consent."

"What's that? Anyway, you are trying to overthrow anarchy with your claims to having authority. The community can't handle that. I will have to restrain you."

"Like hell you will".

Etc. Every fucking day. Every fucking place.

I love how you say that you don't know enough about economics to respond to my questions, and then prove how ignorant you about about 'simple' economics by giving out paragraphs of nonsense about what you admit you don't understand.
I agree. You do not understand economics. Quit pretending you do.

Wat.

You can’t stop murderers in Anarchistan if there is no one to sue on their behalf, can you.

And you can’t stop a powerful person from buying all the roads in some locality.

Since you refuse to even pretend to understand what's being discussed ITT, I don't feel any need to go over the same material time after time.

But ask yourself, do you think the rules would be published? Does that make sense to you?

Some of your questions have truly bizarre assumptions behind them.

Lol you can’t answer my simple point about murder and some guy owning all the roads in a town. How does it feel losing a debate to a retard like me?

It’s your dream, genius. I have no idea how written rules which aren’t laws because there is no “we” would be published.

My bad. That belongd in the Charles thread. But it is better addressed here.

SO, in the Charles thread you wondered about the state of science and how it could be so messed up. Or perhaps it was a broader question along those lines. I don't care enough to look.

I responded directly on point with an interview with a woman who gave a partial answer to your question. I even warned you to ignore the subject matter and concentrate on the point.

Instead, you dismissed it out of hand, called me a repugnant term and ignored that I was answering your question.

You really are a dick at times.

The Internet: You are too dumb for out utopia, what with your imperfect grasp of our economics. Here is a pound of cheese and a box of matches. Now go, and leave us to our common folk's paradise.

Why do you anarchy guys always go, “Go read this long paper” or “Go watch this video”? instead of writing a couple of sentences to make your point with the vid or paper as back-up if required?

Makes me feel you are hiding your underpants gnomes in the paper or the video. Just like the Scientologists who imagine that if I read Dianetics their explanations will all make perfect sense. In fact, no. The underpants gnomes are right there in Dianetics. Maybe they’d see them if they were made to put the concepts in their own words rather than rely upon a gut feeling that the answers really are there.