[ExI] anarchy

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.

This is defining government too loosely. I'm fairly sure, too, Dave meant
something where people explicitly consent and aren't forced to participate
-- not something like a modern city where simply by living there some folks
down in city hall tell you what to do and how much you owe them for the
favor under threat of sending an armed gang to lock you in a cage or gun
you down.

Let me put this another way: What does anarchy mean to you? Just pure
social chaos? No one cooperating on anything? If so, that's not what I mean
by the term and not what any reasonable anarchist I know means by it. It's
not even the original meaning, which is just "no rulers." That's why I
presented those two positions -- no one has a right to rule anyone else and
no one has a duty to obey anyone else. (I got those from Michael Huemer
too. So, I'm not making any claims to being original or innovative.)

> 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?

My guess is the kind of community Dave was talking about -- and he can
correct me where I'm wrong -- is one where no joining wouldn't be a crime.
Also, the likely outcome of not paying the dues would be simply that you
don't get the services. For instance, you decide not to pay for the
security service, then they _might not_ help if your home is burglarized.

I hope you don't take offense, but since you're a libertarian and read a
lot (more than me, I think:), I'm sure you've read many of the arguments
for market anarchism. All the stuff you're bringing up here are all
introductory level arguments. (Ditto for Adrian who's discussed this before
with me. It seems more like a merry-go-round on this: the same
counterarguments I've read on and off for years now are presented again and
again. And it's not like I've done nothing to respond to them. Add to this,
my responses are ones that are already attested in the anarchist
literature, sometimes for decades now or even longer.)

Regards,

Dan
  My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from:
http://mybook.to/Gurlitt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160606/7c915026/attachment.html>