[ExI] anarchy

[William Flynn Wallace]

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.  dan

Does a man rule his family?  What if some yahoo doesn't want to pay for
anything, and so he is cut off from all services.  Does that mean that
anyone can attack his family?  Burn down his house? Kidnap his kids?  What
if he is a wife beater?  Are we going to stand for that?  What if he is
insane?  I think that there is a time to tell people what to do and if they
don't, fine them, take away their family, or put them in jail or an asylum.

Then there is the moral aspect:  should a person be allowed to enjoy
services without paying?  Like a man who won't pay taxes but lives on a
road upkept with taxes?  I just don't see anything by anybody in this
discussion that leaves me to believe that any kind of anarchy, short of
living by yourself in a cave, is even possible.  If I or we are using an
incorrect definition of anarchy, them let's have one that fits some
rational way of living.

bill w

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160606/6074570f/attachment.html>