[ExI] anarchy

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Jun 6, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, exactly. Like a social contract that is truly optional, rather than forced down your throat. 

I thought so. I'm still wondering why this is a shocker here. Everyone here by now should understand the idea -- even if they disagree with it -- and the debate should move on to secondary issues.

>> 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.)
> 
> Aren't those equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)?

In talking my about the specific wording. We can put this several ways which are all corollaries, such as self-ownership, autonomy, and so forth. I find the two points about rule and duty to be a clearer way of stating the principle to most people.

>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, or in the case of a closed community, if you don't join and agree to the rules you don't live there.

I'd also underscore that no one is initially forced to join a community and exiting one is easy and low cost. No high exit fee that would make a voluntary community the moral equivalent of a state. (Borderline cases might exist, but they needn't refute the general idea. That's to disarm those who want me perfection in any idea -- except for nation states, which somehow are okay to be imperfect. That's a false choice between either a flawless stateless society or a flawed statist one. If anyone here wants to make that kind of argument, I suggest you think of how that would apply to anything else. Else it's simply a double standard.)

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/20160606/98054364/attachment.html>