Edward Snowden: American Hero

[volprof]

If the governments role was to protect you the 2nd amendment wouldn't exist. Neither would the standing army clause that is supposed to prevent us from having a national army for more than a two year period.

The governments role is to arbitrate. But even that can be done by the free market.

Edit: as for being able to commit mass murder, explosives were invented in the 10th century. So that ability has been around for 1000 years. The difference is you now have 24/7 news to keep you afraid. That's the only thing that changed.

I'm talking about one person, not an army. One person couldn't blow up tens of thousands of people in the tenth-century. And by "one person," I don't mean a monarch making the decision to have his forces blow up another principality. I mean one person doing it all, like a terrorist today. Making (or thieving) the explosive tech and being able to put it in field, without capture. The twentieth-century (and today, by extension) is exceptional in human history for being the era of the common man, meaning that the common man and woman now has more power than at any point in history, despite whether or not a government lets him or her smoke pot.

Your government sounds pretty useless, which makes sense, considering you too must be an anarchist. Are you?

The following questions are for both you and DTH: how would each of you like to see society organized? And what would "society" even mean to either of you? Do you believe in such things as a "nation"? I ask these not only because I would like clarity but also because I realize that no two anarchisms are completely alike, even to spite the kid with the Anarchy sticker on his skateboard.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I'm talking about one person, not an army. One person couldn't blow up tens of thousands of people in the tenth-century. And by "one person," I don't mean a monarch making the decision to have his forces blow up another principality. I mean one person doing it all, like a terrorist today. Making (or thieving) the explosive tech and being able to put it in field, without capture. The twentieth-century (and today, by extension) is exceptional in human history for being the era of the common man, meaning that the common man and woman now has more power than at any point in history, despite whether or not a government lets him or her smoke pot.

Your government sounds pretty useless, which makes sense, considering you too must be an anarchist. Are you?

The following questions are for both you and DTH: how would each of you like to see society organized? And what would "society" even mean to either of you? Do you believe in such things as a "nation"? I ask these not only because I would like clarity but also because I realize that no two anarchisms are completely alike, even to spite the kid with the Anarchy sticker on his skateboard.

For me, I don't think society can be organized or planned. You can try, but it usually ends up with the regulatory state we're seeing today. Spontaneous order with only market regulation would be the "best" outcome, in my opinion.

Society is an abstract idea, only individuals matter.

As far as nations, I don't believe in nationalism. It inspires hatred of other "foreign" people and you end up with war. With no centralized power in place, you wouldn't have politicians sending young men to die over their diplomatic failures.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm talking about one person, not an army. One person couldn't blow up tens of thousands of people in the tenth-century. And by "one person," I don't mean a monarch making the decision to have his forces blow up another principality. I mean one person doing it all, like a terrorist today. Making (or thieving) the explosive tech and being able to put it in field, without capture. The twentieth-century (and today, by extension) is exceptional in human history for being the era of the common man, meaning that the common man and woman now has more power than at any point in history, despite whether or not a government lets him or her smoke pot.

Your government sounds pretty useless, which makes sense, considering you too must be an anarchist. Are you?

The following questions are for both you and DTH: how would each of you like to see society organized? And what would "society" even mean to either of you? Do you believe in such things as a "nation"? I ask these not only because I would like clarity but also because I realize that no two anarchisms are completely alike, even to spite the kid with the Anarchy sticker on his skateboard.

Yes, one person could've killed thousands in any point in history since explosives came on the scene. Your claim that they wouldn't have access to the knowledge of how to make them isn't relevant because they could've bought them.

Not an anarchist. Libertarian.

What do you mean by "organizing society"? Allow people freedom of association so they can organize themselves. As far as a nation, I don't oppose a federal government. But its role and power should be extremely small. Think of how useless the UN is, and then take away some of its power

 

[volprof]

For me, I don't think society can be organized or planned. You can try, but it usually ends up with the regulatory state we're seeing today. Spontaneous order with only market regulation would be the "best" outcome, in my opinion.

Society is an abstract idea, only individuals matter.

As far as nations, I don't believe in nationalism. It inspires hatred of other "foreign" people and you end up with war. With no centralized power in place, you wouldn't have politicians sending young men to die over their diplomatic failures.

What gives meaning to life in these loosely organized, non-hierarchical relations of spontaneity you envision? Do you think humans can ever be truly fulfilled from their own sense of individualism?

 

[volprof]

Yes, one person could've killed thousands in any point in history since explosives came on the scene. Your claim that they wouldn't have access to the knowledge of how to make them isn't relevant because they could've bought them.

Not an anarchist. Libertarian.

What do you mean by "organizing society"? Allow people freedom of association so they can organize themselves. As far as a nation, I don't oppose a federal government. But its role and power should be extremely small. Think of how useless the UN is, and then take away some of its power

No, this sounds fairly anarchistic. It's not a hard anarchism (no government whatsoever), but sounds like a soft anarchism - basically a vision of society that is organized through loosely-affiliated, non-hierarchical federated collectives, only given some temporary and brief direction from time to time by a central entity, perhaps just for the purposes of coordinating for defense against an invader, or other rare crises, like a natural disaster that affects all.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

What gives meaning to life in these loosely organized, non-hierarchical relations of spontaneity you envision? Do you think humans can ever be truly fulfilled from their own sense of individualism?

I think we already are. Think of every transaction you make in every day life. Do you have to fight your way past savages to get to the grocery store? Of course not. Anarchy is everywhere around you. People naturally come together to conduct commerce. No centralized state is required for that, matter of fact, it happens today in-spite of the state.

 

[volprof]

I think we already are. Think of every transaction you make in every day life. Do you have to fight your way past savages to get to the grocery store? Of course not. Anarchy is everywhere around you. People naturally come together to conduct commerce. No centralized state is required for that, matter of fact, it happens today in-spite of the state.

I live downstream from my major water source, controlled by a group that wishes to dictate terms on the "river." My only hopes of trade are across an unruly mountainous region and a neighboring state that lies on the ocean. I hope the free market works like heck for me, but, for some reason, it just doesn't.

Ought I kill myself, or should I behave like I live in the real world?

 

[Vol8188]

I live downstream from my major water source, controlled by a group that wishes to dictate terms on the "river." My only hopes of trade are across an unruly mountainous region and a neighboring state that lies on the ocean. I hope the free market works like heck for me, but, for some reason, it just doesn't.

Ought I kill myself, or should I behave like I live in the real world?

If they take your means to sustain your own life, perhaps you should kill them

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I live downstream from my major water source, controlled by a group that wishes to dictate terms on the "river." My only hopes of trade are across an unruly mountainous region and a neighboring state that lies on the ocean. I hope the free market works like heck for me, but, for some reason, it just doesn't.

Ought I kill myself, or should I behave like I live in the real world?

Perhaps like 8188 says, you could kill them. But, it would likely be more economical, as well as safer to make a deal for services. It would also depend greatly upon property rights. Does this group own the river? Are you wanting to use their services? Are they asking a fee to use their crossing? Are they supplying water to your community? Your example indicates that perhaps they are a group trying to enforce their will upon your community. If that is indeed the case, You're talking about a world in which the market also offers private defense forces and arbitrators to settle disputes such as these. So you could very well purchase your own security. And, it will be a security tailored to you, as the group you hire would be accountable to you.

Edit: Do we not see the scenario you described play out today? The state dictates everything from which substance you can "legally" put in your body, to how much pressure you're allowed to have coming out of your shower heads. As well as a plethora of other freedom throttling legislation.

"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." Robert Higgs

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Perhaps like 8188 says, you could kill them. But, it would likely be more economical, as well as safer to make a deal for services. It would also depend greatly upon property rights. Does this group own the river? Are you wanting to use their services? Are they asking a fee to use their crossing? Are they supplying water to your community? Your example indicates that perhaps they are a group trying to enforce their will upon your community. If that is indeed the case, You're talking about a world in which the market also offers private defense forces and arbitrators to settle disputes such as these. So you could very well purchase your own security. And, it will be a security tailored to you, as the group you hire would be accountable to you.

Strap on them six-guns pahdner. It's wild west range war time! What's yore fav western of all time. I like Lonesome Dove, but it's hard to chose just one.

 

[jvol1]

I live downstream from my major water source, controlled by a group that wishes to dictate terms on the "river." My only hopes of trade are across an unruly mountainous region and a neighboring state that lies on the ocean. I hope the free market works like heck for me, but, for some reason, it just doesn't.

Ought I kill myself, or should I behave like I live in the real world?

Not sure how riparian rights work in Cali, but in Tennessee downstream owner's have a right to the usage/flowage of waters adjoining their lands.

 

[volprof]

Not sure how riparian rights work in Cali, but in Tennessee downstream owner's have a right to the usage/flowage of waters adjoining their lands.

I'm not sure how they work here either, but I'd much prefer such rights be deliberated by a collective that's held accountable (otherwise known as a "government") than by Boss Hogg, the Dillards, and Ernest T. Bass.

 

[volprof]

Perhaps like 8188 says, you could kill them. But, it would likely be more economical, as well as safer to make a deal for services. It would also depend greatly upon property rights. Does this group own the river? Are you wanting to use their services? Are they asking a fee to use their crossing? Are they supplying water to your community? Your example indicates that perhaps they are a group trying to enforce their will upon your community. If that is indeed the case, You're talking about a world in which the market also offers private defense forces and arbitrators to settle disputes such as these. So you could very well purchase your own security. And, it will be a security tailored to you, as the group you hire would be accountable to you.

Edit: Do we not see the scenario you described play out today? The state dictates everything from which substance you can "legally" put in your body, to how much pressure you're allowed to have coming out of your shower heads. As well as a plethora of other freedom throttling legislation.

"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." Robert Higgs

I think we see anarchy's mayhem everyday in Iraq and Syria, and other such places. Now, you may not think this is true anarchy, but I would counter by saying that a state of true anarchy can never exist as humans are instinctively herd animals and will naturally be attracted to groups, especially those with the most power. That's just how we roll.

Anyhow, I'd rather work through a third party intermediary (ie, govt.) than I would to have to settle such an issue with Bob and his more powerful group upstream. If I have to threaten them with violence, like a drug dealer, than that is understandable, but my hope is that having the third party sort things out will keep both Bob and me from resorting to violence.

I would even counter that we see what a state of anarchy is everyday with the illegal drug trade in this country. Humans are violent. They will react violently in a power vacuum.

I would also counter that the current state of the world is one nearing anarchy, which is why it has become more "violent" in the last few years. America is no longer the hegemon (the govt.) that can keep all placated and at peace. Russia and China are pulling others in different directions, while we have made numerous poor decisions, and the effect is a veritable state of anarchy on the world stage.

 

[volprof]

If they take your means to sustain your own life, perhaps you should kill them

But I'd like not to kill Bob and his cohort, if avoidable.

Any idea of what could help me avoid violence with Bob, besides our own idiosyncratic contract that may or may not be honored by either party?

 

[Vol8188]

But I'd like not to kill Bob and his cohort, if avoidable.

Any idea of what could help me avoid violence with Bob, besides our own idiosyncratic contract that may or may not be honored by either party?

Sorry, I just like to always keep that option on the table. But if there is a contract that isn't being honored, then some form of mediation should be involved. Private companies or a local government either one can provide such a service.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I think we see anarchy's mayhem everyday in Iraq and Syria, and other such places. Now, you may not think this is true anarchy, but I would counter by saying that a state of true anarchy can never exist as humans are instinctively herd animals and will naturally be attracted to groups, especially those with the most power. That's just how we roll.

Anyhow, I'd rather work through a third party intermediary (ie, govt.) than I would to have to settle such an issue with Bob and his more powerful group upstream. If I have to threaten them with violence, like a drug dealer, than that is understandable, but my hope is that having the third party sort things out will keep both Bob and me from resorting to violence.

I would even counter that we see what a state of anarchy is everyday with the illegal drug trade in this country. Humans are violent. They will react violently in a power vacuum.

I would also counter that the current state of the world is one nearing anarchy, which is why it has become more "violent" in the last few years. America is no longer the hegemon (the govt.) that can keep all placated and at peace. Russia and China are pulling others in different directions, while we have made numerous poor decisions, and the effect is a veritable state of anarchy on the world stage.

So you'd prefer the rest of the country be robbed by way of taxation to pay for a government to intermediate with the group. Keep in mind, that's what supplies the immoral means to reach your supposed moral end here.
As far as Iraq goes, we can look back to 1919 and the decisions made there to divide people without caring about tribe loyalty or anything. Also, Iraq was attacked by a superpower country. So, all I see there is a failure of government.

Regarding the drug war. The violence is caused by the prohibition of drugs. If you take away the profit motive by legalization of the drugs. The violence will more than likely stop.

Libertarians/anarchists don't have all the answers. We'd just like to stop robbing and killing each other and then we can see where that leads.

 

[n_huffhines]

I think we see anarchy's mayhem everyday in Iraq and Syria, and other such places.

How is that anarchy and not government failure?

 

[n_huffhines]

Volprof, what evidence is there that the world has become more violent? More violent than when?

 

[Vol8188]

Volprof, what evidence is there that the world has become more violent? More violent than when?

Like I said: 24/7 news

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I should probably put the entire Robert Higgs quote here.

"Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.
Robert Higgs

 

[hog88]

Volprof, what evidence is there that the world has become more violent? More violent than when?

The world hasn't gotten more violent or less violent it's just the 24 hour news cycle that brings it to our attention.

 

[n_huffhines]

The world hasn't gotten more violent or less violent it's just the 24 hour news cycle that brings it to our attention.

Agreed the media is the reason for the misconception, but in terms of body count, the world has definitely become a lot less violent. It's not even close.

 

[volprof]

Volprof, what evidence is there that the world has become more violent? More violent than when?

More violent than the 1990s, when the US was the sole hegemon.

And it is a more threatening world as well.

It's still pretty good, all things considered, when you compare it to the pre-nation state years of veritable anarchy, when principalities couldn't account for their own record books, much less the farm family being rapped by either invaders or the principality's own knights on its periphery.

 

[hog88]

Agreed the media is the reason for the misconception, but in terms of body count, the world has definitely become a lot less violent. It's not even close.

Way to short of a time frame to claim the world has gotten less violent. Plus violence isn't always limited to state actors.

 

[n_huffhines]

Where are you getting that it's less violent than the 1990s? According to that Smithsonian graph, there is less death due to war.

I know for a fact the murder rate is down in the US, compared to the 1990s.