Anarchy isn't lawlessness
Posted by Irresolution_@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 31 comments
If you evade justice under anarchy, you will be as, if not more, ruthlessly chased as you would be under statism until that you are put to justice.
Reputational capital is key for whatever one does. Such underlying principles have and do sustain anarchical systems.
Different-Pipe-1341@reddit
Ahh yes, the street justice of mob rule.
Icy-Success-3730@reddit
Least statist r/libertarian user.
DigDog19@reddit
Nothing embodies mob rule more than democracy/republics.
Ancaps want to pay for services consensually, statists believe they have the right to vote/decide how the property of others is used and that it is okay to murder them if they do not comply.
Now get lost with your bad faith quips.
Different-Pipe-1341@reddit
I understand that democracy is mob rule, I'm simply pointing out that having a mob decide the fate of an individual is the same, whether it's via anarchy or democracy. I actually do believe we need some form of government, and a constitution, which is why I'm a libertarian and not an anarchist.
DigDog19@reddit
How can ancap be mob rule? You need to explain your position not just repeat it.
How is allowing people to consensually pay for services worse than literal mob rule forcing them to pay for them under the threat of death?
Anarchy is the logical conclusion of libertarian ethics. You have no arguments. This is pure sophistry or ignorance.
Different-Pipe-1341@reddit
How can anarchy not be mob rule? Who decides what constitutes justice? A random group of people? Is there an inherent set of rules that people just magically agree upon? Or does your philosophy assume that everyone simply sees life and the world exactly the same as you do and there will be no problems because of that?
DigDog19@reddit
So you don't know enough about anarchy to tell me. Just say that. Don't answer a question with a question to change the subject.
Keyhunter2009@reddit
You don't know enough about how people function to realize why anarchy isn't a thing.
DigDog19@reddit
Ffs if this is all you people got, we are going to see anarchism rise again.
Different-Pipe-1341@reddit
Hopefully not, typically throughout history dictators have used anarchists to further the perception of need for a totalitarian state.
DigDog19@reddit
They are not anarchists if they support a state. That's not an argument against my position either.
Different-Pipe-1341@reddit
You seem to have an issue with reading comprehension, coupled with a desire to only have your personal biases confirmed. Not once did I say that anarchists supported a state, because that would be stupid. I'm saying that people like Hitler and Stalin used would be anarchists and other revolutionaries to support the need for stronger laws and tougher punishments. Since civilization became the rule rather than the exception for humans, anarchy has never been viewed favorably by the average citizen, and the fear of it has caused that same average citizen to demand a stricter government. This happened in America as well in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, we need some rules. We need someone to protect the people who can't protect themselves, and it isn't feasible under anarchy unless you had someone to force these people to behave in a way that is befitting the society that they live in, at which point it is no longer anarchy and the same cycle repeats itself.
DigDog19@reddit
"You seem to have an issue with reading comprehension, coupled with a desire to only have your personal biases confirmed."
No I am frustrated because you keep making red herrings. My argument is the governments authority is not legitimate. They are criminals, a violent gang. Communities formed on the frontier and then they were forced into the government or declared rebels and killed.. T Hat's not consensual, that is crime, it's a form of slavery. There is nothing legitimate about this system.
The government did not acquire it's land nor authority through legitimate means.
The only ethical ways to acquire property is through voluntary exchange, homesteading, or justice. Rights are objective and measurable. It's not something you can just ignore and pretend isn't real and then decide it's okay to take peoples shit because you have a bunch of what if beliefs(what might happen if we don;t steal from you type of arguments)
You need to make an argument as to why the government has the right to my shit not a bunch of propaganda about anarchists that has nothing to do with anything.
"Not once did I say that anarchists supported a state, because that would be stupid."
You use a lot of vagueness and are not specific about anything. Wtf do you expect.
"I'm saying that people like Hitler and Stalin used would be anarchists and other revolutionaries to support the need for stronger laws and tougher punishments."
Authoritarians lying about people who want their rights respected is nothing new. This not relevant to what I am arguing at all. Unless you can clarify how it is, stop saying it.
"Since civilization became the rule rather than the exception for humans, anarchy has never been viewed favorably by the average citizen, and the fear of it has caused that same average citizen to demand a stricter government."
Now you are conflating government with civilization. I don't agree with that even slightly. I think it is a highly uncivilized and barbaric concept. Stealing is wrong, murder is wrong and so is kidnapping. This is why I keep emphasizing the ethics that you keep ignoring and changing to false understandings of economics and socialist beliefs in general.
"This happened in America as well in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, we need some rules. We need someone to protect the people who can't protect themselves, "
I consider you to follow the ethics of criminals. You can support people if you want, you do not have the right to steal from me to fund it and you have failed again and again miserably to provide and argument as to why it's okay to do that.
"and it isn't feasible under anarchy unless you had someone to force these people to behave in a way that is befitting the society that they live in, at which point it is no longer anarchy and the same cycle repeats itself."
This stuff used to be all done by the private sector. Literally logdes gave affordable healthcare until the government banned it. The same is true of nearly all government services through most of human history. The government is criminals trying to monopolies resources and industry. That's all it is.
We can pay for firefighters consensually, law enforcement, defense ect and have only given me the logic "It can;t work it would just be chaos" is not what we are arguing.
Medieval iceland was like this for nearly 400 years until the one small government aspect of it ruined it all. Early america was very much like this. I mean you people are just making shit up at this point.
Keyhunter2009@reddit
No. Medieval Iceland was not governmentless. It was ruled by a series of Chiefs that all hated each other and ruled their clans with an iron fist.
DigDog19@reddit
Learn to read, I said it was like it. The only government was the chief system and that's where tyranny grew from.
Courts, police, and all other services were private.
When they had a civil war because of the chiefs the casualty rate was on par with new works murder rate.
Keyhunter2009@reddit
Correction. Murder rates weren't that high under the chiefs because murder would kick off a war. Iceland was ruled by chiefs until the kings showed up. There were no services and Iceland wasn't unified until the last thousand years when they got a king
DigDog19@reddit
Lol, you are leaving out a lot of important details like it's the catholic church that brought in king's through the chief system.
I can point out how stupid and illogical violent monopolies are. You are a brain washed socialist get lost.
ZaDu25@reddit
Ancap is an oxymoron. Capitalism inherently requires a government that decides the validity of ones right to the property they own, and said government to protect that person's property. Without a government you don't own anything, whoever has the bigger stick in a conflict over that property is who owns it.
Capitalism and anarchy are fundamentally incompatible. Capitalism needs a central apparatus that has the authority to validate your ownership of property and the power to enforce your rights to that property. There's a reason historically anarchy has been associated with leftist and communist ideology.
upvote-button@reddit
You are fixating on the economic perspective. This conversation is about the criminal perspective. Historically there have been many many instances of leaving the justice up to the general public with no real rules or definitions. Overwhelmingly this ends with a large number of murdered defendants with about 2/3 of them actually being guilty and very few (if any) of the crimes being worth capital punishment. Go read the story of how the LAPD started. Ancap is not the extension of libertarianism. No structure is very very different than "as little structure as necessary"
DigDog19@reddit
"You are fixating on the economic perspective. This conversation is about the criminal perspective. "
No, I am literally talking about ethics issues. You guys just can't defend your positions so need to build straw men and red herring.
Taxation is extortion enforced with murder and kidnapping. I see no logically consistent arguments against this.
"Historically there have been many many instances of leaving the justice up to the general public with no real rules or definitions." Vague and non specific. Like Somalia? Gangs, warlords and dictators are governments. The people there support and want crime. They do not follow ancap philosophy.
The philosophy of the day in most of the world is socialist ethics. That drives people's economic views.
"Overwhelmingly this ends with a large number of murdered defendants with about 2/3 of them actually being guilty and very few (if any) of the crimes being worth capital punishment. "
Only true of statists. Governments hold the record for the most murder out of anything by far. It's also a red herring and not relevant to my position.
"Go read the story of how the LAPD started." Like a marxist saying go read marx. If it didn't help you make sense in this conversation why would I care?
"Ancap is not the extension of libertarianism. No structure is very very different than "as little structure as necessary" Why do you belive murder stealing and kidnapping is okay? Because this isn't a refutation of my position.
upvote-button@reddit
Dude try again. Im not responding to this. I gave an example and you told me to cite an example. You had a full paragraph purely on the economic aspect and then immediately claimed you were only talking about the ethical issue (whish isn't even what I said). Youre just choosing to interpret everything in a nonsensical way that's easy to argue against so you can argue. Figure it out or im not interesting in debating your kind
DigDog19@reddit
So you got nothing. Then stop talking.
upvote-button@reddit
Im stopping talking because you've got nothing bud. You respond as if you wont even completely read a sentence but want me to read an essay. If you want to have this debate, actually read my comment and respond to it instead of just making shit up youre assuming that im thinking and respond to that. Because youre not even hitting 50% accuracy on your assumptions so youre mostly arguing with an imaginary version of me that doesn't exist
DigDog19@reddit
"m stopping talking because you've got nothing bud."
Please do stop, you got nothing dude.
"You respond as if you wont even completely read a sentence but want me to read an essay."
It's nonsense. It's almost entirely unrelated to what I am speaking about.
"If you want to have this debate, actually read my comment and respond to it instead of just making shit up youre assuming that im thinking and respond to that. Because youre not even hitting 50% accuracy on your assumptions so youre mostly arguing with an imaginary version of me that doesn't exist"
You are totally ignoring what I say and projecting straw men and other fallacies dude. idgf.
upvote-button@reddit
It is unrelated to what youre speaking about because there was a conversation topic everyone else in this thread of messages was having and then there's you somewhere near Jupiter having your own conversation with make believe people. If you want to talk get back to the subject at hand. If not stfu
DigDog19@reddit
Dude, learn when to quit. You are embarrassing yourself.
upvote-button@reddit
Check a mirror dawg. There's a very good reason some people agree with me and 0 people agree with you
DigDog19@reddit
No there isn't or you would have told me instead of the nonsense you spoke. Blocking, you are purposefully just wasting my time now.
Lanky_Barnacle_1749@reddit
Imagine one being in a libertarian sub and not ascribing to the NAP…happens all too often. Statists gonna state…
kaiveg@reddit
Your examples for decentralized law enforcement working kind of suck.
Ever since we are moving to a more multipolar world conflicts are escalating. There is major landwar in europe, two nuclear powers (India/Pakistan) were engaged in active fighting not too long ago, the middle east is an even bigger mess that usually and Aserbaidschan took a part of Armenia.
Rulings of international courts only matter if the country in question cares about those institutions.
When talking about the German nations 1000+ years of confederalism I assume you're talking about the HRE. Because that is the only entity that has been around that long in the relevant areas. And there were plenty of internal wars in the HRE. So I am not sure if I would mention it as a positive example in that regard.
I know significantly less about the "Wild West" than the HRE so I am gonna keep it short. Wasn't the "wild west" known as a dangerous region and time period ?
Keyhunter2009@reddit
I hate to tell you but without some government to implement and protect rights of people, the mobs would rule and there would be no rights for anyone but the mob bosses.
Even libertarianism wants a SMALL government so that something can guarantee and protect our rights.