<a href='https://talkpolitics.dreamwidth.org'>Talk politics.

You still don't get it that that driving a car is heavily regulated, and got that way for certain reasons.

I understand that completely. You are simply presuming something erroneous about my understanding.

...making your own choices on everything

This is a misstatement of the argument. I have nowhere advocated chaos. Anarchy is the absence of rulers, NOT the absence of rules. The distinction is crucial and if you do not understand it further discussion will not be productive.

People are capable of establishing rules and organizations for themselves in voluntary systems. My contention is not that people should not create organizations and establish rules but that such organizations be voluntary and based upon trade, not coercion and violence.

From:

Do what no anarcho-capitalist/lolbertarian/minarchist/Randfan has ever been able to do, and answer that question.

From:

mintogrubb.livejournal.com

LOL - and spilt my coffee :)

I sit and wait for an answer, I think we may be waiting for some time - I'll go make another cup when I've cleaned up the keyboard :)

From:

gunslnger.livejournal.com

Just because you're ignorant of the answer doesn't mean it hasn't been answered. Read some Libertarian/Anarchic philosophy.

From:

Reading is what people like that will NOT do. Politics and the recourse to force is an escape from thinking. It is a collection of denials of reality with the consequent search for scapegoats upon whom the consequences of those denials can be foisted. They want eat their cake and have it too, and when it is pointed out that their system only grants them the illusion of having their cake after eating it by the mechanism of stealing their neighbor's cake then they demand, as a condition for relinquishing their fervent embrace of the present immoral and dysfunctional system, that the one who points out the system's logical contradictions and injustices replace their fantasy Rube Goldberg system with a complete system, out of the box, ready for them to use without thinking too much about it. It is always risible to see such demands.

From:

I have, genius. Still waiting for an answer.

From:

gunslnger.livejournal.com

If you had, then you would have your answer, so either you haven't, or you didn't understand it.

From:

Give us an answer or continue to be the laughing stock of the comm.

Re: Keep tapdancing.

From:

gunslnger.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 00:40 (UTC) - Expand

Tappa tappa tappa!

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 15:42 (UTC) - Expand

From:

I have read it. It was called The Communist Manifesto and it was an execrable, boring waste of paper suited for being an asswipe.

From:

You want a king. If I were king, the first thing I would do is to have you executed, for annoying me. That would seem to make the world a better place from the get-go. As

gunslnger pointed out below, there have been entire books and series of books written on the topic of the question you've asked. Thrusting out your chin beligerently and baldly asserting that nobody has ever been able to answer the question makes you look profoundly ignorant. It is the kind of argument one makes when one hopes to garner the accolades only of people more in the dark than oneself. You can have them. I am addressing those who can read and are willing to do some thinking. Your question is answered every day, by everyone who uses adjudication systems outside of the government's courts. Your question is answered every day by every property owner who opens his property to the public for visitation and commerce and who makes rules for their conduct. You are either too insensible to the functional anarchy that already exists all around you, or too ideologically and emotionally hostile to it to acknowledge it. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they do not exist.

From:

mrbogey.livejournal.com

The other day at work a co-worker asked me how a certain tester worked because his understanding of electrical systems would mandate a test probe that the tester did not provide.

I told him it didn't need it because it's designed to do so non-invasively. He kept asking me "but how??"

Eventually I told him, "Look, I don't know how it works. Maybe it uses some electrical property of the system we don't realize or understand but it works."

And he responded again... "but how does it work?"

To which I just said, "I don't know but it does!"

From:

Nah, I can understand genuinely wanting to know the answer to something like that. The key question is, is your co-worker the kind of person to do his own digging and looking for answers besides just asking you over and over again.

Answers to the question you're talking about and answers to the questions about mechanisms a free society might use to guarantee property and provide security are in abundance, especially using the internet as a resource.

From:

I want no such thing. What I do want is an answer to the question, cupcake.

How would the super duper utopia of anarchocapitalist libertarian awesomeness you live to espouse actually function?

For all the effort you're putting into avoiding answering you could have given a really great answer.. if you had one.

Do you?

(deleted comment)

From:

And that answer is 'the wild west", as we all sort of suspected.

A scenario that rapidly grew beyond the tiny scale at which an ad-hoc society can function and started adapting with local and county governments, usually in response to "Swedgin" type gangster-barons.

(deleted comment)

Re: Finally someone gives us an answer.

From:

underlankers.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 21:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Finally someone gives us an answer.

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com - Date: 19/7/11 02:57 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

For whatever it's worth.

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com - Date: 19/7/11 14:55 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

I love profit. I'm about to go make some right now

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com - Date: 19/7/11 15:47 (UTC) - Expand

From:

Which is horseshit of the finest quality for manuring one's fields. The West had railroads, settlements, applied for territorial and state status rather quickly, and the influence of the Lincoln Administration's Homestead Act made the Wild West inconceivable without it. Sorry, this is not how anarcho-capitalism works in the real world.

(deleted comment)

Re: What an adorable strawman.

From:

underlankers.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 21:57 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

Re: Yes, dear. Whatever you say, dear.

From:

underlankers.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 22:03 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

Re: Yes, dear. Whatever you say, dear.

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com - Date: 19/7/11 14:57 (UTC) - Expand

From:

SO perhaps summarizing those arguments would be in order, Miles Gloriosus.

From:

Summarize, eh, Marcus Lycus? All right. The key understanding is that there is no such thing as an authority to violate rights. There can be no delegated right or authority to initate force against anyone who has not themselves violated rights. Whatever organizations are voluntary and explicitly contracted for are legitimate. Those which presume to authority to confiscate property or otherwise infringe on the rights of others are immoral, and in a just society, resisted or at least eschewed by any moral person.

If one wants something, one pays for it, makes it oneself, trades for it, or receives it as a gift. If one wants to organize, the organization must be voluntary, not presumed under some sort of collectivist mysticism based upon race, religion, tribe, or geographical location. If one wants to partake of the goods and services of others, one obtains voluntary permission through persuasion, not plunder.

There is the operating criterion for any just organization or individual in a free society that claims to respect the common humanity. Any organization, organized for any purpose not violative of these means is legitimate. This would include any organization created for the purpose of providing security, or redress of grievances or dispute resolution.

From:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, eh?

Re: And by what mechanism, and with what resources, would those rules be made and enforced?

From:

montecristo.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 01:42 (UTC) - Expand

Re: And by what mechanism, and with what resources, would those rules be made and enforced?

From:

underlankers.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 12:19 (UTC) - Expand

Re: And by what mechanism, and with what resources, would those rules be made and enforced?

From:

malasadas.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 14:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: And by what mechanism, and with what resources, would those rules be made and enforced?

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 21:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: And by what mechanism, and with what resources, would those rules be made and enforced?

From:

underlankers.livejournal.com - Date: 18/7/11 21:47 (UTC) - Expand

From:

mintogrubb.livejournal.com

people are capable of establishing rules and organizations for themselves in voluntary systems. My contention is not that people should not create organizations and establish rules but that such organizations be voluntary and based upon trade, not coercion and violence.

Thanks for the bit about Anarchy + absence of Rulers, not rules.
I can see the logic here, an it is fine for a gentleman's club, where everyone knows everyone else and keeps to the unwritten rules even , for fear of being thought ill of.

However, should anyone from outside come in and start putting their feet on the seats, who is to enforce the rules of the club ?

This question has been put several times.

You may want to read up on the concept of the 'Diffusion of Responsibility' - I am sure you would find it interesting .

From:

soliloquy76.livejournal.com

One could argue that choosing to live in a place is a de facto agreement to follow the laws of the land. You're certainly free to live somewhere else, or work to change the laws.

From:

You're right. You abolish the government and replace it with the Church and corporations, society is still ruled by vast bureaucracies.

From:

You cannot escape the need for organization. As long as no organization has monopoly on force or the supposed authority to initiate it against people who have not themselves acted with aggression or violated rights, then you have a just, voluntary society. The only way that churches, corporations, and other coercive bureaucracies obtain unjust authorities is that people allow them under delusions of mysticism. The political sphere is not immune to these nationalist, statist delusions. My point is that these delusions must be resisted on all fronts, not just the ones of which

underlankers disapproves. The State is not holy. It is not the Hobbesian embodiment of the will of Everyman. This is a collectivist religious fantasy for those who want their divinities in an earthly realm as opposed to a celestial one, nothing more.

From:

Really, Mr. "I oppose all taxation and all government, which is a nest of robbers?". There's no room for organization there any more than in The Communist Manifesto. What reality does to this would be just as much a shock as Comrade Stalin was to the Marxists.

From: