Capitalism: What do you think?

Then what are you saying?

Capitalism is not a bad thing (provided that when you say 'capitalism' you are talking simply about markets free from violent intervention and not reffering to our current system of state capitalism)

I didn't say there couldn't be some sort of system for dealing with criminals, I'm saying that

1) it is unreasonable to assume that the market will produce a justice system similiar to a statist one because things are decided on the market in a much different way then things decided by the government.

2) the current system does nothing to help the person who was actually harmed by the criminal.

Are you suggesting that there is a single best way™ to deal with crime?

Why does a market economy preclude helping others?

 

The state and the individual are too interelated to distinguish on such a basis.

Democracy has prooved to function.

Anarchy will lack social order.


Uhhum.

 

The state and the individual are too interelated to distinguish on such a basis.

Democracy has prooved to function.

Anarchy will lack social order.


Uhhum.

 

"The state" is nothing more then certain individuals acting in a way that we as casual observers recognize as "statist". It is clear that the vast majority of violence is committed by individuals acting in such a manner, it is also clear that it is the existance of the state that makes such actions possible, it would be quite hard to fund a war if you could not levy taxes or conscript men.

So has totaltarianism, does this make it desireable or mean its the only workable system?

Also what would you have to say to a sceptic of democracy who lived before the creation of athenian democracy?

What in your opinion creates social order?

 

Individuals may act as statist but they are still individuals producing violence.

Totaltarianism hasn't functioned near as well as Democracy. No sir.

To that man I would say: "How does death feel?"

Government, of one form or another, creates social order.

We are going in circles.

 

Yes but it is the existance of the state that gives them the means to commit said violence.

That is a matter of subjective opinion.

In other words you would abandon rational argumentation, thus in effect conceding the point to the critic.

Impossible. Government implies there is a society to govern, which means society preceeds government.

 

People always have the means to commit violence, that's silly.

There is always a society, society will form no matter what sort of government there is. My guess would be that people would align themselves by race and religion in anarchy, and form societies of their own with appointed officials in order to survive.

I lived under Communism, it wasn't pretty.

 

So I guess it makes even more sense to let one small group of people, even though as you say they can't be trusted, in charge of protecting the majority. That in itself is hypocritical.

 

It's an ironic statement. Politicians are people too, and no, they can't be trusted either. My statement doesn't exempt them.

 

I am not claiming that violence will disappear in an anarchist society, all I am saying is that without the state it would be next to impossible to commit violence on the same scale as state sanctioned war. Without the ability to force people to do what the state decrees is 'necessary' how could you possibly mobilize societies resources to wage something on the scale of ww2?

And my guess is that people would align themselves due to their common interests, such interests do not necessarily include a state. Of course a state may reappear, but there has never been a social order in the history of mankind that was permanent, even Rome eventually fell. Why would we expect any different from an anarchist society?

I am not a communist, I am a firm believer in private property.

 

There would not be "war", I agree... but there would be a tremendous amount of direct individual to individual crime which would have more causalities than any war.

Nothing in mankind is permanent. People are proven in experiments to align themselves by race and sex. Goooooooooogle it... do you ever realise the amount of disorganisation and violence anarchy will produce? People will be thinking about survival and not about "Man... this guy likes basketball, we should be friends". There will be war in the streets.

I ain't sayin' yousa commie... I was referring to totalitarianism.

 

You continue to assume social order requires a state. You have provided no evidence for this claim other then asserting its truth. The fact of the matter is that social order is the product of many different factors, and yes violence is one of them, but this does nothing to show why government is the only possible instituion capable of providing social order.

All you need for social order is the following:

1) an agreement between the members of the society.
2) a way to enforce these agreements.

 

All you are suggesting is a government without a government.

It's the same bloody thing.

Also, try to get a couple of hundred million lazy people to agree on a social order, it was hard enough the first time.

 

Nonsense, a government has the monopoly of the use of force in a given territorial area and historically is the result of conquerors subjugating the conquered. Anarchism is where people organize for their security not because someone told them to but because they feel it is best for them. The difference is of choice, under a governmental situation if you feel the government is not protecting you very well or is exploiting you you have no choice but to simply deal with it. Anarchism is the freedom to choose who you associate with and for what purpose.

Think of it like this, protection is a service, an economic good. Now most people realize that monopolies are very inefficient at serving the general public, why then is the governments monopoly over protection services so great?

People naturally organize themselves, its not as if people will say 'fuck it' and retreat to the jungle and live as hermits.

 

People always organise for their security... it's never because someone told them to.... it's always for the best. People have been organising like that for bloody ages, that's the point.

You can still choose who you associate with and for what purpose, but you also have the government there making sure that the people you associate with don't murder you.

 

Not disputing this.

Your right, the government never tells anyone to do anything how could I not of gotten that?

According to whom?

I have no choice but to assosiate with the government regardless of whether or not I feel it is best for me. The same is not true of basically every other secter of society, i do not have to buy my food where i do nor my cloths nor 90% of everything i need to live my life. Government is bassically a monopoly over protection services and justice.

 

I agree, the government is a sort of a monopoly, but it's a beneficial one.

Point being... if people don't have a government, they'd form one.

People need to be told what to do and what is right or wrong. This you cannot dispute.

 

This is what we are arguing about, simply asserting your position on the issue is right is not a very good argument.

Only if they thought it was benificial, or it was forced upon them. Historically the latter was the most common case.

A great book on the formation of the state is The State by franz oppenheimer an economist and sociologist.
http://www.franz-oppenheimer.de/state0.htm

I certainly can dispute it, who decides what is "right" and "wrong'? Why is their definition superior to everyone elses? What rational basis is there for forcing everyone to accept someone elses subjective view of 'right' and 'wrong'?

 

So, what if an individual lived in an anarchist state and his opinion on raping and killing his mother seemed just, who would anyone else be to say otherwise?

 

Everyone would have their own opinion, but it only takes a few people to organize and rid society of this individual.