[ExI] anarchy

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 6 19:38:22 UTC 2016


A group of people can form a community and agree to the rules of being a
member of the community, including funding a police force.

-Dave

  *And then you have a government.  Any time you get people to contribute
to something, like the up keep of the road they live on, you have in effect
taxes and people to collect them and distribute them.  Then there is
community water, fire protection and so on.  What could be debated is how
big an area needs a government to supply these services - town, county,
state etc.*

*Thus:  there will be governments.  Period.  And rules for crimes, not
paying taxes and the like.  (I saw one community fire crew let a house burn
down because the owner owed $75 to the fire dept.)  People are government,
so gov will do stupid things because there are stupid people - no shortage
of them.  Don't we see them getting elected all the time?  *

*bill w*



On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:57 AM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > One argument seems to settle this issue:  if there is no government of
> any kind, then
> > there is no police force of any kind.
> >
> > If no one can be told what to do or restrained from doing it, then you
> have chaos and
> > rule of the mighty, who then will tell people what to do.  QED
>
> People need to be told what to do because? You seem to be presuming that
> no one will coordinate or cooperate at all in the absence of a state. Yet
> history shows people do coordinate and cooperate without a state. (We can
> debate how well they do and whether a state makes this happen better, but
> were there no coordination or cooperation, how would a state arise in the
> first place?)
>
> As for predation -- which I take as your real concern here -- why couldn't
> people defend against this and also coordinate for their defense against
> this?
>
> Now, you might, like Ayn Rand, believe this would only result in rival
> gangs fighting over turf, but there are good historical and current
> examples of stateless societies where that doesn't happen. Add to this,
> actual gang wars do happen under statism -- aside from wars between states
> -- usually because states have prohibited (or heavily restricted) some
> activity (gambling, sex work, recreation drug trade, etc.) to make it
> lucrative to war over and because the state has legally disarmed (and not
> just guns, but all remedies*) the general populace.
>
> We can, of course, discuss the details of all this, but I don't feel it's
> a slam dunk argument for a state as you believe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>   My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from:
> http://mybook.to/Gurlitt
>
> * Similar to how the US and UK governments slowly regulated mutual aid
> societies to benefit doctors and insurers. These aid societies were a
> non-state means for working poor folk to buy healthcare without relying on
> charity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160606/7586ae17/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list