Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G-19, Aug 18, 2012.
The folks confuse me. There wa a lot of talk about ownership of property but of course, without a "State" to recognize it it doesn't exist anyway.
What struck me as odd was,
"However, under anarchism, even such a strict property regime is not guaranteed. There is no way to impose it on a community that wants to operate a different way. I predict there will lots of different communities and systems that will compete for people to live in them and whatever seems to work the best will tend to spread. Theres nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than theyd prefer. Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than theyd prefer."
Isn't that the description of the birth of a "State"?
Before there was .gov in California during the gold rush days, there were ad hoc agreements by the miners and a fixed set of rules by which the miners must behave or their claims were lost.
You gotcher "San Francisco Committee of Vigilance", which was a vigilante group that brought peace and lawfulness to that town even in spite of the .gov corruption.
Then you gotcher "Cattlemen's Associations" that got along just fine without .gov.
They even had almost peace with the indigenous peoples until 'Goldilocks' Custer and the War Criminal Sherman showed up to eradicate them.
.Gov was the source of more violence in the 'Old West' than all the rest combined.
I could post links, but it isn't that hard to find.
"Anarchy" does not mean a bunch of hairy, bearded, wild eyed, maniacs running around throwing bombs. It merely means...
The early days of California proves that it is possible.
Those of you feeding in the .gov trough hate to admit it, but we could get along without you, probably even better.
I am more tham familiar with "Miner's courts" and Cattlemens associations, but the pure fact is they "gave way" with incresed population density and the arrival of "civilization" as it was.
As a matter of fact, my GGGrandfather was one of the first town marshals in a town in the NCa gold region.
It is nice to sit by the fire and daydream about those romantacized times but quite actually they are impossible to recreate today.
The conditions that eliminated them have become the "norm" expected by today's society and no matter how big the group you find yourself in, all longing for a return, you are still but a small fraction of the population. It ranks right up there with the TEOTWAWKI fantasies.
I am a little confused.
First, you state that no private property can be owned without the protection of the state and then
You claim that all that private property was protected by the cattlemen's associations and the miner's courts and how your G3father was, like, a Marshall in one of those lawless mining towns.
Then you try to tell us that we need .gov because of the population density.
Methinks you are dragging in a distractor with the population density. Such as a pretense to defend the need of .gov.
When people stop taking responsibility for their own welfare and start to depend on .gov for their protection, then yes, there will be lawlessness.
Just look at Chicago today.
You are being obtuse for it's own sake, quite a talent you have developed.
My ancestor was one on the first Marshals in a town that had formerly been mining camp under miners law. I obviously never met him but it led me to research the topic, especially in my position as the curator of an historical society Museum on the edge of the gold country myself .
I really don't think population density is a "distractor" at all it is the cause of the need for govt.
Give up the fantasy.
I don't think the author of the piece in the OP is really trying to prove what the title suggests, since he closes with the following:
It looks like he's basically just engaging in some definition-tweaking (not that there's anything wrong with that), and doesn't make a compelling case for much in particular -- he basically argues for a kind of self-organizing market in property rights once the barbarous notion of "state" is eliminated, which seems fine as far as it goes.
The state does to the people the same thing that they tell us the chaos of anarchy would do to us.
To paraphrase George Washington...Govt., like fire, is a useful servant but a terrible master.
So, which is .gov today; Servant or Master?
Yessir How Holding my thumb up and looking like a fool.
I'm sure anarcho-capitalism could work. All that would have to change is that people would have to be honest.
There is too much anonymity in the world to pretend that running a business dishonestly will put you out of business. In a small town, yes, in a global economy, it's actually a common business model.
I am thinking about not voting. Yes, I will show up at the polls and probably vote for a county commissioner, who I know to be an honorable person but I will probably leave the rest of the slots blank.
While I will not vote for Obamer nor Romney and I have considered voting for Johnson, but likely, it is a lost cause.
The article I link to above, while requiring, like 5 minutes to read, I suspect is too much for the Rombots to read (not that I think you are idiots, but that you are brain dead) shows that many Americans are aware that the game is closed and that they are but just spectators to the allusion.
They have figgered out that they are just voters who are used to allay some validity to the whole corrupt process.
When the people begin to realize that we are trapped into an oligarchy and that the choices we make really only choose which flavor of oligarchy that we want to suffer for the next 4 years and that, yes, there is the choice of Liberty, well, then maybe we will wake up.
We did it to ourselves.
Yessir How High
The crickets woke me up.
I guess none of the neocons could rebut.
I'm still trying to decipher what you are alluding to with that allusion.
I thought we were discussing anarcho-capitalism, and it's likelihood of success, you went elsewhere, not even sure where you landed? I read the complete article, but pretty much glossed over the rest of your post as soon as you lost your manners.