ForumTouchy Subjects ► The Far / Radical Left
In an effort to avoid having you read a large block of text, seeing as you have better things to do than educate yourself, I’ll try to keep this short and concise. I’m not sure I understand you clearly, your saying that because alcohol is an inhibitor it is justified for one to make the choice to drive under the influence? I don’t see ignorance of ones intoxication levels as an excuse to drive under the influence. I was taught in high school that if I have to ask myself if I am too intoxicated to drive I’m too intoxicated to drive. I was taught that there are responsible ways to enjoy drinking, for example designating a driver a head of time and taking turns with your group of friends. Or to call a cab. Or even that it is better to have a friend or family member upset with you because you called them at 3am for a ride home instead of dying because you made a poor choice. That aside you haven’t addressed the fact that there are countless other laws that the fear of punishment does nothing to stop people from breaking. Sorry that’s a little longer than I would have liked but nonetheless.
  
Grayseff said:
Insofar as the Monarchy is the De Jure head of state where I live. This whole argument is effectively "people are not going to play nice" "yes they will" "probably not" "but this book says they will!"

^ this. "the book says they will" or "I say they will" is a terrible argument. If there is even one counterexample to your argument (somebody who _will_ do bad things when laws are gone) then your whole premise is logically false...
  
Like I’ve reiterated several times, the premise that the law stops one from committing a crime is logically false. Men have been trying to use the fear of violent punishment to compel other men to behave for thousands of years with no success, why do you believe that it will just suddenly start working? Do you know the definition of insanity?

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein.”

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/
  
SUre but if we _don't_ have laws more people will do bad things. If the law can't even stop people, what will stop people in a state of lawlessness?
  
That’s a fair question.
  
Please allow me to answer your question with a question. If it was not illegal for you to commit murder or robbery would you? If you say yes what reasons would you have to do so, why would you? If you say no why wouldn’t you, why would you not? Personally I can see that I would not because logically I would get much farther in life if I worked with my fellow man than by murdering and robbing them. See now that there is good reason to behave without being compelled by violent punishment?
  
I wouldn't commit crimes because I have no balls but like I said, counterexamples exist. Isn't there an entire horror movie franchise devoted to what happens when there's no law and people who have violent compulsions (who didn't act out under the law) do whatever they want?
  
Yes I’m sure we are all well aware that the media is used to control and condition the masses to act and think a certain way if certain things happen. There are plenty of examples in relatively recent history that prove that the first thing people do when a government stops upholding the law is not murder and rob each other. Take for example the Russian revolution, after the government was abolished they didn’t begin to “purge”.
  
There is a ton of regulation on the medical sector, because there are very high costs for mistakes. Without a government to regulate, poorly trained doctors could do more harm than good.
Traffic regulations and enforcers are also important. Do you always follow the speed limit? Are you more careful about your speed when you see a police car or traffic camera?

Also, AndersonJones, you keep saying that you get farther in life by not robbing or murdering or whatever, can you elaborate on this? So many people do get farther in life by exploiting others, and I fail to see how to prevent it from happening
  
Andersonjones
Vikings. Bandits. Pirates. Organized Crime. The Triad. Mafia. The Mob. Latin Kings. MS13. Crips. Bloods. Thousands of small street gangs. Drug cartels. Crime syndicates.

These aren't fictional characters created for the purpose of entertaining people. These are real world examples of extra governmental organizations that are more than willing to use violence to achieve their goals. Get rid of the mutual defense afforded by governance, and you're handing control of society to an organization like the ones listed above.

Organize, and provide mutual defense, and you're a government. Anarchy is an impossible social configuration, because it inevitably would lead to another form of government. It's really only possible in the transition period between regimes, and even then, true statelessness is a rarity. Things generally become more informal - already established organizations step in. You mention Russia: the Mob stepped in. That's why the government is a corrupt piece of shit. Thus the Moscow election protests right now. Governmental collapse following a failed attempt at central planning led to authoritarianism. Which, interestingly, is the very shit they were trying to do central planning to avoid.

Turns out oligarchy, and the authoritarian bend most oligarchies take, is actually more of a problem in societies that organize their markets in that manner.

What really are you complaining about? Stratification of goods and services. Nixing the government won't help you with that one, and neither will central planning. In fact, a strong government that redistributes wealth and regulates markets that are allowed to organically form through free market capitalism (free market in the sense that the production of goods is not controlled by the state, not necessarily free market in the laissez faire sense) is a better system.
  
I like the tacit assumption that anarchy will be inherently egalitarian and not Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian, let alone Feudal like I suspect it would become within a few generations.
  
Regarding drunk driving: the reason it's illegal even if laws don't always stop the initial DUI is so we have a legal path for removing someone's license. Once we have established that someone does not have the self control to either not drink nor the self awareness to drink but realize they're too drunk to drive, we make it much, much harder for them to obtain a car or drive. After receiving a DUI after the first incident of "I'm sure I'm sober enough to drive!" the person may also take better precautions next time to avoid it, like taking an Uber to and from the bar.
  
Evergreen:

I’m not sure I understand what you mean, regulation is not the same thing as punishment. Do we violently punish those who fail their college courses and cannot get a medical license? No, we just don’t allow them to become doctors, in other words we regulate them. There is not compulsion from violent punishment there. I agree completely that poorly trained doctors should be regulated and not allowed to practice until they have the proper skill set.

I agree that traffic regulations are important also, but not the enforcers. Haven’t we already agreed that the law doesn’t stop people from committing crime? Enforces do nothing to stop people from ignoring the law.

Yes I do follow the speed limit always, I like to get to where I’m going alive and I understand the best way to achieve this is to work with my fellow brothers and not speed. Now when someone else ignores the law (regulation) and kills me because they lost control of their vehicle what good did the law do me? It didn’t stop them, so what do we have it?

How can others exploit you if everyone around you is willing to work together to protect you and themselves from such oppression? Need I say more? Let me ask you this, who exploits and murders and robs the most? The government or the average citizen?

Deuceswild420:

I’m not sure why you listed these groups of people. They could not exist within the borders of an anarchist society.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying here. Why would we all suddenly stop defending ourselves from outside threats just because our government has been abolished? That makes no sense and is not grounded in reality. People don’t just stop protecting themselves, even our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms so that we could rely on ourselves to protect ourselves. Not to rely solely on government protect which ultimately ends up totalitarian. I’m not sure how you can say that our government protects us from those who would use violence to control us when that is the very thing our governments doing, our government protects those who rob and murder us. I have shown this several times in my previous comment.

I seriously don’t understand what you are saying. How is organizing so that we can defend ourselves (working together as brothers so that we all have a better life) not anarchism? That the literal definition. What form of government would you call working together for the common good? Anarchy.

I was referring to the Bolsheviki time period in Russia. After governmental abolition the Bolsheviki used anarchist ideas to get the people on their side, but soon it did turn into a dictatorship. Had the Russians been better educated would they have allowed their revolution to be turned against them? I think not.

I’ll reiterate what I’m complaining about as clearly and plainly as I possibly can. The government we find ourselves in is no longer a capitalist republic, it is an industrial capitalist government. The government serves only to protect those who steal and cheat and murder legally, it does nothing to protect you and me from criminals. As we have both agreed that the law is broken regardless of their fear of violent punishment. So why should common decent people be compelled by the law to allow the fruits of their labor stolen from them? Why should the common decent people be compelled by the law to live a certain way or to not live a certain way? Instead of working together and sharing in the wealth that they’ve worked together to create while working together to defend themselves from outside threats? That is what I’m complaining about.


Zia:

Why would they not then make the choice to drive without a license? They’ve already proven they disregard the law when it is in their best interest. I don’t see how making it harder for them to go to work or see friends and family is going to help the matter.
  
The law does provide deterrence. There are sure several things I would do right now if I wouldn't get into trouble for doing them. You're acting like people just don't care whether they get arrested or not. However cool it would be to walk into any building I want, I know if I tried to break into a nuclear power plant, there would be negative consequences for me. And the fact that there is an organized force prepared to stop me from doing so means that I likely couldn't break into a nuclear power plant, even if I didn't care.
And the court can take several actions to prevent you from repeating offenses. Like getting a lock installed on your wheel that won't let you drive unless you pass a breathalyzer test. Or putting you in jail if you murder someone. Or taking away your children if you abuse them.
What is the solution to a serial killer in anarchist society? Even if it's a symptom of some mental health problem, what if they don't want treatment? What if they think they don't need treatment? Do you just let them keep killing people? You could kill them to prevent more death, or lock them up, but someone has to make that decision.
Basic human nature is that there are going to be disagreements. Someone wants to dam a river for hydroelectric power. Someone who enjoys fishing just upriver of the dam doesn't want that to happen because it will flood their favorite fishing spot. Someone is worried about the ecological impacts. Does the person get to build their dam, because nobody can say no? Do the fisherman and the environmentalist get to tear it down after it's built? How do you prevent people from just acting in their own interests at the expense of others?

Because people do that all the time. You, with a stable internet access and electricity and clean running water, are doing much better than most of the world. The clothes you wear are probably made in less-than-friendly conditions. The electricity you use is hurting the environment to create. It's very hard to empathize with those things because humans have trouble seeing the bigger picture a lot of the time. Otherwise, if you believe every human life is just as important and we can only get better by helping each other, why don't you spend your time volunteering at a homeless shelter instead of debating on the internet? The internet is right here, but it's easy to forget about people you have no real interaction with.
If we could just snap our fingers and have everyone have clean water and internet, don't you think it would have already happened? We don't have infinite things and infinite energy. Shipping oranges requires fuel and manpower. It means that fuel and manpower can't be used for other things. That manpower could be digging wells and that fuel could be used to transport medicine. If we all focused our efforts on improving the situation of the human race as a whole, the richer parts of the world are going to lose some amenities. We are consuming resources and energy at an unsustainable rate. But people like eating oranges.
  
Sure, they might still drive without a license. But it makes it harder. You have less access to purchasing a car, less ability to drive normally without risk, etc.

And even if taking away a license only works for some people and not all, that's still a benefit. I don't understand why you're so against incentivizing people not to drink and drive through legal avenues?
  
Zia said:
Sure, they might still drive without a license. But it makes it harder.


Would a good real world example of this be gun control? In countries where guns are more strictly regulated there are a lot less shootings than here in the US.
  
Do you know the definition of insanity?

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein.”

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/

Not a definition, not said by Albert Einstein, and not relevant.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean, regulation is not the same thing as punishment.

Regulation only works with punishment associated for breaking those regulations. Practicing medicine without a license is a crime and has punishments. Selling rat intestines as Grade A Beef is a crime. Forcing employees to work in hazardous environments is a crime.

A regulation without punishment is toothless and useless.
  


I’m not sure why you listed these groups of people. They could not exist within the borders of an anarchist society.



I listed these groups of people because they are prominent real world examples of organizations willing to use organized violence to achieve their goals, and they exist regardless of the existence of a government. Unless you provide a mechanism to prevent their existence, they will exist.


I honestly don’t understand what you are saying here. Why would we all suddenly stop defending ourselves from outside threats just because our government has been abolished? That makes no sense and is not grounded in reality.


There's a difference between an individual defending themselves and *mutual defense* wherein people band together and defend *each other*. The act of mutual defense creates circumstances that fulfill the basic requirements of governance. So governance can be described as "the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions" (Wikipedia).

Mutual defense requires conditions under which the executive (militia) will mobilize - and those conditions are essentially the laws. They mobilize in a given geographic region in response to conditions predetermined through the negotiation of social norms via organic social institutions. So in a community defended by a militia - having a mutual defense component - the following things are met: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary - all in a specific sovereign territory. That's a government. It doesn't matter that it's very unlike the governments of today, it's still *governance*.


People don’t just stop protecting themselves, even our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms so that we could rely on ourselves to protect ourselves. Not to rely solely on government protect which ultimately ends up totalitarian. I’m not sure how you can say that our government protects us from those who would use violence to control us when that is the very thing our governments doing, our government protects those who rob and murder us. I have shown this several times in my previous comment.


I'm really unsure as to why you're bringing this up. There's a difference between people defending themselves and the capabilities afforded via mutual defense. Of course personal defense is something citizens should worry about, but abrogating the government doesn't change that. It simply changes the ability for a community to be protected by mutual defense - something that I've pointed out protects them against macro level threats, like entire organizations that would seek to harm them.


I seriously don’t understand what you are saying. How is organizing so that we can defend ourselves (working together as brothers so that we all have a better life) not anarchism?


As I've stated multiple times, the act of organizing for mutual defense creates governance. Anarchy by definition is the abrogation of governance. You're advocating for communism, not anarchy. That's also known as central planning, and it actually makes the things you're complaining about like a million times worse


That the literal definition. What form of government would you call working together for the common good? Anarchy.

Anarchy: "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal".

No, that's not the literal definition. I'd call lots of forms of government that. That's a common goal of most governments that haven't been taken over by oligarchs.

Ignoring the Russian history part, because, well, I thought you were referring to the period of soviet collapse, which is a better example of the government collapsing, because it wasn't collapsed by a revolutionary force that is inherently * a replacement government*. So you just referenced a really weird timeframe if you were wanting to talk about social collapse without runaway violence (Because everyone knows the Bolshevik revolution was filled with that, I mean, come on. Even Disney made a movie about it).


I’ll reiterate what I’m complaining about as clearly and plainly as I possibly can. The government we find ourselves in is no longer a capitalist republic, it is an industrial capitalist government. The government serves only to protect those who steal and cheat and murder legally, it does nothing to protect you and me from criminals. As we have both agreed that the law is broken regardless of their fear of violent punishment. So why should common decent people be compelled by the law to allow the fruits of their labor stolen from them? Why should the common decent people be compelled by the law to live a certain way or to not live a certain way? Instead of working together and sharing in the wealth that they’ve worked together to create while working together to defend themselves from outside threats? That is what I’m complaining about.


Exactly! That's exactly my point. You're bitching about the stratification of goods and services - the fruits of their labor not going to them in the appropriate amount. You're advocating for mutual defense. You're not advocating for an anarchist society. You're using the wrong words to describe what you want. I mean, I disagree with what you want, but you'd probably get further if you were actually using the proper words to describe what you're after. You'd probably run into a few people that actually agree with you.
  
Anarcho-communism is a thing, though.
  
Please allow me to answer your question with a question. If it was not illegal for you to commit murder or robbery would you? If you say yes what reasons would you have to do so, why would you? If you say no why wouldn’t you, why would you not? Personally I can see that I would not because logically I would get much farther in life if I worked with my fellow man than by murdering and robbing them. See now that there is good reason to behave without being compelled by violent punishment?


If good faith were enough to make people behave nicely in society, then it wouldn't matter how many violent punishments we had because nobody would ever need to be punished. Given that we do have robberies and murders in society, we can already rule out the idea that removing laws would eliminate bad behavior.

Laws put a scaffolding in place through which trust can be extended to people we don't know. Laws make people feel safe and lubricate economic and social interaction so large societies can function. If you trust the enforcers of the law, then you trust the people living under the rule of law, which allows us to go much farther much faster and work collaboratively much better. This is increasingly important as communication technologies make fast, smooth, trust-based interactions with strangers more important.
  
To add to Gorgon's apt assessment, law also affords a court system wherein private citizens can resolve disputes. Without a government, a court system, and laws, you couldn't sue people - which would really make private disputes turn into full blown feuds.
  
Coldfrost:

There is a difference between holding one accountable for their actions and using the fear of violent punishment to control the way others live. The law you are so passionately defending makes it impossible for you and me to hold certain people accountable for their actions. That is not equality or freedom. I understand where you’re coming from, but can we at least agree that the law only provides deterrence to those who are poor and cannot afford a clever lawyer? I’ve asked this once already, perhaps you missed it, is it not a common conception where you live that the rich can do whatever they want? It is where I live, I hear it almost everyday in the media or from friends and family. I just can’t understand why you support a system that serves only to act as a deterrent to some and not to all. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that actions should have consequences, I simply believe that everyone should be subjected to the consequences of their actions. That being said I literally just answered you’re question about those who would choose to commit violence against others in my last comment. At the risk of sounding redundant, how is it brotherly to stand by and watch as another tries to kill our brothers? Why do you believe that anarchists would condone such behavior? Why would we not defend our brothers from such? Self defense still exists in anarchy, I’m not sure why everyone here believes that anarchists are pacifists, where is that coming from? Do you see that when we all work together none of us can be afflicted by oppression or violence as we are now, what about that means to roll over and allow everyone to do whatever to anyone? Have I really been so confusing? If so I apologize.

Why would someone want to break into a power plant? What would be the motive behind that? Because it’s cool? So in other words sane people commit crime for no reason whatsoever? I just don’t see that being the case, are you not getting upset because you think I’m claiming that people will behave for no reason? As I’ve said, a sane person does not commit crime unless it is in there best interest. That is not saying that people will behave for no reason.

I’m not sure I understand why security ceases to exist in an anarchist society, could you elaborate on that? Anarchism doesn’t advocate “pacifist-ism”.

I find it amusing that you would bring up our court system, seeing as I cannot take my employer to court for stealing the majority of the fruits of my labor. This just goes back to the law only being enforced on some and not on all. What good is the court system that allows such to go on?

Why can’t we still hold people accountable for drinking and driving by installing a system in their car that doesn’t allow them to drive unless sober? How would it be brotherly to allow our children to grow up abused? Yes you are right there are going to be disagreements, why does that mean people won’t be held accountable for violent behavior? Are you saying that some sane people would disagree that violence and child abuse shouldn’t be allowed and ignored? That sane people would disagree that those who do so should be held accountable?

Do you really believe that I’m advocating that we should not treat someone with a mental illness just because they don’t want to be treated or because they don’t believe they need it?

I’m rather confident that one person cannot built a damn as you’ve described. Building a damn takes a very large amount of proletarian labor doesn’t it? Building a damn can be brotherly if done right, it can be ecological as well. This example is a very poor one, wasn’t there a huge protest of an oil pipeline being built that went through some Native American reservation not too long ago? As far as I know the protesters were completely ignored, and the pipeline was built anyway. So the system you are defending does the very thing your claiming my system would do. When in reality my system wouldn’t allow one to build where others protest, and yours does.

“How do you prevent people from just acting in their own interests at the expense of others?” This is the very thing I am talking about, the law defends this kind of behavior. The law prevents us, you and me, from holding certain people accountable for acting in their own interests at the expense of others.

So because my conditions are relatively better and my opportunity is relatively better I should ignore the fact that others have better conditions and better opportunity because they steal from me? You can’t be serious.

How do you know I don’t spend my time helping homeless people? Let’s say I spend all of my time and every penny on helping the homeless, how would that make our society better? How is that me working with my brothers so that we all have more wealth and equal conditions and equal opportunity? How could I educate those around me? Can’t I help those in poverty and those unemployed better by educating those around me that we need to abolish poverty and unemployment by working together?

“If we could just snap our fingers and have everyone have clean water and internet, don't you think it would have already happened?”

What about what I’m saying is as easy as snapping ones fingers? We have to WORK together to gain those things. They aren’t going to fall out of the sky, what do you think anarchism is exactly? You clearly have a very wrong idea about what it is and means.

But people want to eat oranges? I am really glad you brought this up, this goes along with what I’m saying entirely. How is the fuel created? By the manpower of the proletarian. So if the proletarian created the fuel using his manpower he should own the fuel shouldn’t he? But he doesn’t does he? His employer owns the fuel. Why is that? Why does the proletarians employer have a right to own (steal) the fuel the proletarians manpower created? That is the system you are defending so blindly. The proletarians are not the ones consuming fuel and manpower at an unstable rate.

Zia:

I feel I’ve covered your concerns in what I’ve said to coldfrost, if you are still confused please let me know.

Fwip:

I apologize for misquoting, I’ll try harder to avoid that in the future. But I feel it is extremely relevant, like I said we have been trying the same thing for thousands of years with no success. Is that not insanity to you?

Practicing medicine without a license and being held accountable for doing so is not the same as regulating who has a license. We don’t hold people accountable for failing to get a license, only for practicing without one.

Deuceswild420:

I’ll be honest, I can see you point about mutual defense being a form of government. And perhaps you are also correct about my improper use of the word anarchism in regard to what I am complaining about. I’m not an expert on anarchism yet. That being said I do know that I am correct in calling the solution to what I am complaining about anarchism. I am advocating for an anarchist society, a communist anarchism society. I want communist anarchy to be the solution to the problems I’ve miss labeled, I apologize for the gross miss labeling of my complaints.

Have I not pointed out how our current governments are just as much “prominent real world examples of organizations willing to use organized violence to achieve their goals”? Isn’t working together as brothers so that we can hold everyone accountable for their actions a mechanism to prevent their existence? I don’t see how it isn’t.

Gorgon the wonder c0w:

I feel I have covered what you’ve asked, if I haven’t please reiterate what you are confused about and I’ll do my best to clear it up.

General:

I apologize for the long response time, I simply needed a slight reprieve. I’m sure you understand.
  
...can we at least agree that the law only provides deterrence to those who are poor and cannot afford a clever lawyer?
Actually, we can't. Yes, there are issues with corruption (which are improving all the time), but having a good lawyer won't automatically get you out scott-free. Look at Jeffrey Epstein, if you want a recent example. There are dozens upon dozens of cases where the rich and powerful get off lighter than they should, I will agree. But that's not an intrinsic part of the system. It's something fixable, that continues to get fixed. That's one of the foundations of the U.S. court system: all people are equal under the law. No nobles, no social castes.
how is it brotherly to stand by and watch as another tries to kill our brothers? Why do you believe that anarchists would condone such behavior? Why would we not defend our brothers from such? Self defense still exists in anarchy, I’m not sure why everyone here believes that anarchists are pacifists, where is that coming from? Do you see that when we all work together none of us can be afflicted by oppression or violence as we are now, what about that means to roll over and allow everyone to do whatever to anyone?
Who decides what is self-defense and what is aggression? Morality is not universal. Where are the lines drawn? Who decides where and when the dams are built without greater social organization?
Why would someone want to break into a power plant? What would be the motive behind that? Because it’s cool?
I think it would be cool to poke around a nuclear power plant. I'd love to go swimming without any clothes. I'd be perfectly okay if we killed unrepentant child molesters. Let's go kill them right now. I heard a rumor Jimmy down the street is one. It's self-defense for the community, right?
I find it amusing that you would bring up our court system, seeing as I cannot take my employer to court for stealing the majority of the fruits of my labor.
Because you signed a contract agreeing to your pay and job responsibilities. If a lot of people agree the wage is too low, there are political actions you can take. My state just raised the minimum wage through a referendum.
Why can’t we still hold people accountable for drinking and driving by installing a system in their car that doesn’t allow them to drive unless sober? How would it be brotherly to allow our children to grow up abused? Yes you are right there are going to be disagreements, why does that mean people won’t be held accountable for violent behavior? Are you saying that some sane people would disagree that violence and child abuse shouldn’t be allowed and ignored? That sane people would disagree that those who do so should be held accountable?
The point I'm trying to make here is that it is impossible to ensure any level of justice when every person is in charge of policing others' actions individually. There are plenty of gray areas. If there is no higher organizational power with the oversight and ability to enforce a common code of conduct, I really don't see how it could end except a spiral of retaliatory violence. People make rash decisions. People value their experiences over the experiences of others.
There is already such debate over things like the death penalty and abortion and environmental laws. The debates aren't going to magically clear up in the absence of a government. People will just lose the power to affect change on a larger scale. Even if the majority of people agree some certain action should be taken, how do you communicate that to society? How do you enforce that on a large scale? You couldn't know if any given action is agreed upon by the people as a whole. Every person would be left with only their own sense of morality as their guide, and everyone will think different things. It isn't justice if someone takes action against me for something I didn't know was wrong. I don't think nude swimming is wrong, but at least I know society as a whole thinks public indecency is. The social consequences of any given thing would be determined by such a small group of people. Even just one person. People will compel others by force or punish them by violence. There would be nothing compelling them not to, not even common virtue.
Do you really believe that I’m advocating that we should not treat someone with a mental illness just because they don’t want to be treated or because they don’t believe they need it?
The only way to treat them if they don't want to be treated is to compel them.
If social pressure won't work, then physical violence may be necessary.
It's also another gray area. Is being transgender a mental illness? Some people say yes. Some people saying being liberal is a mental illness. Or being gay. Or being conservative. And if common defense is left up to every individual person, there would be nothing to stop gay conversion therapy.
I’m rather confident that one person cannot built a damn as you’ve described. Building a damn takes a very large amount of proletarian labor doesn’t it?
Sure, a fancy hydroelectric dam. But a road can be a one-person job. Or a simple dam to make a pond. I've done it. Beavers do it. It doesn't have to be individual disagreements. A large group of people can get together to build a dam. A large group of people can disagree with that.
When in reality my system wouldn’t allow one to build where others protest, and yours does.
How do you stop them? If things can only be done if everyone agrees on them, nothing will ever get done. There will never be 100% agreement on anything. So we won't have electricity because nobody wants a power plant near them, we won't have highways because nobody wants to move their house to make room for it.
How is the fuel created?
By a long chemical process involving long-dead organisms. Fuel reserves are finite. Peoples' ability to do things is finite. There are only so many hours in the day and so many people who can do certain jobs.
So if the proletarian created the fuel using his manpower he should own the fuel shouldn’t he? But he doesn’t does he? His employer owns the fuel.
His employer gives him money that represents his share of the fuel. Unless you want them to go home with several gallons of crude oil every day. And you can't just say 'you pumped one hundred gallons, and each gallon is worth $1, here's $100'. You have to pay people to organize the shifts and teach people and inspect the equipment. You have to pay taxes for common infrastructure and organization.
That is the system you are defending so blindly.
I kind of resent that, actually. I think about things. I've studied economics and philosophy. I'm not defending anything blindly. I'm not saying the system is without fault in premise or in implementation, but it's a whole lot better than nothing. Anarchy, being effectively a lack of government and law, would be the 'nothing'.
The proletarians are not the ones consuming fuel and manpower at an unstable rate.
Do you consider yourself a proletarian? Because you are consuming fuel and manpower at an unstable rate. I am consuming fuel and manpower at an unstable rate. If you make more than like $20k a year, you are making more than the per capita income of humanity right now. And humanity is still a long ways away from self-sustainability.

I may edit some things for clarification later, but I'll be sure to mark them. I gotta go.
  
On people driving drunk: I don’t think alcoholics are intentionally trying to hurt people when they have to take their children to school. You can’t just call an Uber or ask a friend to take your kids to school everyday. Unless you wanna say alcoholics are immoral for being alcoholics.

Also, on your other points from way earlier; what if I just don’t want to work with you? What if I just don’t respect you, brother? What if I don’t like your notion of brotherhood and comradery... friend? What if I want to care about basically just myself? How are you going to educate me to think differently? Go ahead and try. It still seems like every time you say “education” you mean “indoctrination”. Ultimately, I’m just glad you’re not a Stirner smoker.

“I understand where you’re coming from, but can we at least agree that the law only provides deterrence to those who are poor and cannot afford a clever lawyer?”
So let’s just have no lawyers at all. Good luck trying get anyone to convince 12 conservatives in Mississippi that it was accidental homicide and not murder when your emergency break fails and you accidentally hit a toddler that wandered into the road immediately after a sharp turn in a highway surrounded by dense forest. Imagine if that happened and you had no courts at all, just a bunch of shocked people in a commune.

Also what is this now, you think that court appointed attorneys are just bad? What’s your basis for thinking that? Also attorneys work pro bono pretty often. Yeah, I understand where you’re coming from there, I really do, but I think the solution is just to socialize legal representation.... not put people in situations where they can’t prove to a mob who probably doesn’t even know the difference between murder and homicide that they didn’t murder a toddler.
  

Gorgon the wonder c0w:

I feel I have covered what you’ve asked, if I haven’t please reiterate what you are confused about and I’ll do my best to clear it up.

I didn't ask a question so surely you misread. As far as I could find, you certainly never responded to the second portion of my post regarding trust being a necessary lubricant for economic activity, and mutual consent to rule of law being a necessary component of generating trust with strangers. You don't seem to have given a sufficient, fact-based assessment of why you disagree with the first part, either.
Why would someone want to break into a power plant?


The fact is people do break into power plants, even now with laws. So, again (per my post which you did not address), what reason do you have to believe that this behavior which totally exists would disappear without laws?

Sources: Motivations vary from Religious extremism, political disagreements, espionage, general burglary, or even unmotivated crime.

I cannot take my employer to court for stealing the majority of the fruits of my labor


You sure can. It happens all the time. You do not seem to know very much about the current economic and criminal justice model.

What good is the court system that allows such to go on?

Something being imperfect and something being useless are different. My bed has a few uncomfortable springs. That doesn't mean I go sleep on the floor.

Why can’t we still hold people accountable for drinking and driving by installing a system in their car that doesn’t allow them to drive unless sober?


This is a law. You are suggesting a law. For this law to work, somebody must enforce that vehicles are manufactured to these specifications and that individuals are not modifying their vehicles to remove the breathalyzers.

Building a damn takes a very large amount of proletarian labor doesn’t it?


The word is dam.

It's very easy, and common, to build a dam through slow-running waters such as marshes. I lived on a marsh for 20 years and worked in conservation with the Department of Natural Resources in my home state. Even though marshes appear still, waterflow is vital to the environment. A single person can build a land bridge across a marsh from edge to edge in a few days or weeks with shovel and a bucket. I've seen it multiple times.

Because these people are not ecological experts, they don't realize they're damaging the environment or, often, don't care, which can cause long-term damage to human safety. There are surely millions of examples of cases we see where individuals or small groups damage collective resources for short-term, personal gain without regulation.

It happens constantly, so to deny that it happens showcases you aren't very well-educated on the topics on which you're speaking and makes it seem like you're engaging in this discussion without good faith (meaning you don't seem to be engaging with the intention of coming to a good answer with the data available).

“How do you prevent people from just acting in their own interests at the expense of others?” This is the very thing I am talking about, the law defends this kind of behavior.


This is empirically untrue. Violence, poverty, early death and other negative outcomes trend down worldwide as rule of law trends up. Unilaterally, nations with weak governments or no governments have greater inequity, greater poverty and lower life expectancy across the span of recorded human existence.

So because my conditions are relatively better and my opportunity is relatively better I should ignore the fact that others have better conditions and better opportunity because they steal from me?


That a system isn't perfect is not an argument for eradicating it. If you want to eliminate something, you need to demonstrate how eliminating it would be better, not how having it is imperfect.

Let’s say I spend all of my time and every penny on helping the homeless, how would that make our society better? [...] Can’t I help those in poverty and those unemployed better by educating those around me that we need to abolish poverty and unemployment by working together?


That depends how you're helping them. An attempt to help and actually succeeding in combating a problem are different. If your attempt at education is a string of empirically false accusations and misunderstandings, as demonstrated in this thread, then certainly there are better ways to help.

How is the fuel created? By the manpower of the proletarian.


This isn't really a full picture. The fuel is created by the invention of the mechanism by which the fuel can be understood and utilized, and then feats of engineering which make it possible to derive the raw materials for creating the fuel, and then the labor (manpower and robotic labor) which actually procures that raw material.

A system which doesn't have the initial conditions for trust is a system in which innovation can't occur, which means fuels can't be invented let alone harvested.

So if the proletarian created the fuel using his manpower he should own the fuel shouldn’t he?


As demonstrated above, the laborers who harvest the raw materials for fuel are not the ones who make fuel possible. Moreover, laborers are selling their labor to another individual. If laborers were capable of producing oil on their own, they would do so. They couldn't because they don't know how.

Thus a partnership is needed between many, many people, and trust is needed between many, many people to make this partnership work. This is the role of law and regulation, to create an environment of trust. Reducing law and regulation doesn't help the laborers, it just reduces their opportunities by reducing the innovation which creates advancement.

The answer to the problems you are pointing out is not deregulation, it's better regulation.

We don’t hold people accountable for failing to get a license, only for practicing without one.


We do hold people accountable for failing to get a license before practicing.

And perhaps you are also correct about my improper use of the word anarchism in regard to what I am complaining about.


You seem to be having trouble with using words correctly and using fact-based arguments. That's why nobody is convinced, and it might be a sign that the arguments you're trying to defend are not well-founded. You accused Coldfrost of defending something blindly, but you're the one here who is such a non-expert they can't even be sure if they're using the correct noun to describe the system they're advocating.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > The Far / Radical Left