ahh this is fun theres not alot of instances where murder is right its not okay because then you're stealing.. and stealing is a no-no, if you have no home or no one to turn to and you're starving your ass off.. then its fine.. but if you're just too lazy to work or earn for your chippies.. then shame.. shame shame everyone does.. and im not just talking about authority.. society pushes the individual to assimilate their way.. School is the best example.. if you dont act/talk/dress the right way you are outcast.. we are always lead to ways to live our life from the start yeesh you dont need a government to tell you that its bad to kill a person.. they didnt invent the "unkilling-people-rule".. if you have any sence at all about morality or compassion you would know that murder is wrong (with a few exclusions).. You're not going to just stab someone in the face because you needed some chippies, are you? arrrrre you? say you want to kill someone.. lets take what you just said and apply it to the person you are going to kill.. "It's my life, you cannot tell me how to live my life."... hmmm.. do you see my point? No one can tell you how to live YOUR life but you can suddenly end whoevers life YOU want.. Where are their freedoms? mmm thems some nice contradiction-flavoured chips then round up all your anarchy buddies and dwell under the earth, call yourselves the "underworld".. create an army of sludge monsters and rise up to the surface and do battle with the evil overworld mwahahahahahahaha ill give you some chips? hmmm so people who kidnap little girls and takes them to their homes.. rapes and kills them should do that, because they're living as they see fit? People who hate others of a certain nationality or creed should be allowed to do and say whatever they want because its how they see fit? and Ben Affleck should still be allowed to make movies because its how he sees fit? give me a break may i ask what do you want to do so bad that your corrupt government is stopping you from doing so? This fucked up authority that is totally ruining your purpose in life... honestly.. what are you being held back from? and there is absolutely nothing wrong with living to please others.. if you dont then you will see you have a rather selfish life and attitude towards it.. The greatest things in the world arent controlled by the government.. love being the most important.. sure gay people arent allowed to get married in some places but that in no way stops them from being lovers.. ofcourse it sucks but if anything it unites them more.. Governments dont tell how a tree grows or what sound a bird makes.. how food tastes You need to find a purpose to your life.. if anarchy is the only way that will grant you that then you need to really sit down and evaluate why the hell you even bother with life.. if you dont live to please others then why live at all? im not telling you to kill yourself or nothing im just saying to think over how you value yourself and the ones you love.. Yeah authority sucks and governments are corrupt.. but people are fucked up and nothing is or will be perfect.. not even anarchy.. there will never be a perfect society because that would involve changing the views of every single person who sees different.. which is impossible.. and contrary to what you're saying life is very short.. so you really need to live it, you cant waste it by bitching and ranting about how laws and authority is holding you down because in reality.. its not going to change or stop.. and thats a grim fact Sorry to say this and you'll probably hate me for it but i think you're just a whiney punk because there are alot of fucked up people in this world with real problems and real things holding them back from living their lives.. if not ending them we all feel pain.. we all hate something.. go live in some 3rd world country for half your life and know what wanting freedoms really means.. *hands you some chips*
Link, what's childish or non sensical is to think people in an anarchist society will act in consideration of others... I'd say your principles are more based on individualism leaning on selfishness. And a society like that wouldn't work.
Why does is not? Are people not individuals? Are people not selfish? I'd agree with your statement that my conclusion is childish....if it happened to go against the logic of mankind. However, I hope you've connected the dots, my sort of non-system works exactly within the logic of selfish incentives that every human already acts upon. My most basic praxeological axiom is that when provided the opportunity to execute voluntary action, an individual will choose based on the larger incentive according to his or her values. Hence, when there is a non-coercive negative incentive in place (examples were mentioned in an earlier post), individuals realize that it's simply not in their best interest to violate anyone else's rights.
Indeed, but yet there are some points on wich we must put our efforts together to obtain good living conditions; there needs to be some kind of society in wich everyone has to do his or her deeds according to his/her abilities. Now, not everyone's gonna do that. See me coming? That's where we need authority. And piece by piece we are putting the existing system back together. A world in wich everyone lives for himself will not work; you need a doctor to cure your sickness, a carpenter to build your house, etc. Then we need money or some kind of service exchange, hence the need for a gov't. The problem is not gov't itself, it's corruption and personnal interests.
I don't see what you mean. You'd rather have a state FORCE people to be productive? Do you realize the ramifications of this? The state is then rewarding those who are or choose to be incompetant. How does that affect productivity positively? What you're proposing is a half truth. I agree in that people should be able to succeed according to their own ability/decisions. But you ignore the converse: that everyone must be allowed to FAIL according to their own ability/decisions. That is why competition and progress occur, that is why market growth occurs: because some people fail and others succeed. Those that are successful are rewarded, and those that aren't suffer. The beauty of anarchy is that people can choose to be productive, or they can choose not to be. By natural, non-coercive incentives, people will actually suffer if they choose to be non-productive. No one will come to their door and point a gun to their head and force them to work, nor will anyone likely give any positive incentive to not work/be productive. The individual is still left with their choice, but the outcome is solely on his/her shoulders. This exact same situation comes into play everywhere: most evidently in the market and in public schools. Everyone is forced to go to public school (let's leave children with special needs out of the mix for a moment). Some teachers call home to parents, or take other coercive means in attempt to coerce their students into doing work. The ones that are willing to by their own interest and own accord are generally the most successful and most efficient. The ones that need to be dragged through the curriculum or that demand their hand be held all throughout their formal education generally do not do so well. So in the same classroom, which is more productive, a classroom with both types of students, or only the ones that choose to learn? Most likely the latter. The ones that choose to be productive will generally succeed, and the ones that don't will be pumping your gas in some amount of years. So, in reality, the teacher need not call home, and need not coerce. The ones that choose to produce will succeed by their own hand and ability, and those that do not, will not, and that is their incentive. The only inaccuracy in this analogy is that, unlike a teacher, the state has little (if any) productive value (their only means of accomplishment are destructive: tax money and legislation). Somehow my last post got deleted, so I'll have to restate the next bit: Doctors, lawyers, patients, all treat patients, take on cases, and seek medicine for their own self interest. Self interest drives voluntary exchange, and voluntary exchange drives the world.
If we didn't have a law you wouldn't be able to do anything not even be happy or you may not even excist cause the people who lived before you had murdered each other till there was no one left ...
Why would people murder each other until there was no one left? Do wolves, lions, or any other species of mammal kill each other senselessly? Not generally. So why would humans exterminate themselves? That said, I'm not completely sold on the idea of total anarchy. Not because I think murder etc. would be rampent, but because maybe a hierarchy of power is more productive to society. Back to the wolf anology, a pack has a clear hierarchy. Same with a herd of horses. So perhaps that's the most efficent way to organize a society. Maybe if we did turn to anarchy it would last for a time and then fall back into a more familiar pattern of having a government? Granted, I won't argue that the current system of government is kind of fucked, but that's a different topic... The subject of self-rule and criminality (is that a word? but you get what I mean) I do think that people would behave better if behaving better was more of their own responsibility. For example, when I was little I used to have to feed the dogs every night. Even though I had to do it every night, I would always wait for my mom to tell me to do it, even if I was sitting upstairs with nothing to do thinking that the dogs had to be fed. But then when she'd go away on a conference and there was no one to tell me to do it, and it really was my responsibility to make sure the dogs got fed, I was excellent about it: every night, right on time, no procrastinating involved. So what am I trying to say? If behaving well (i.e. not being what we'd consider a criminal) is suddenly the individual's responsibility, and there's no one to make them do it maybe they'll take it upon themselves. It's worth thinking about, at least.
Whimsicality, that is a perfectly reasonable doubt. It is true that wolves form packs, and other forms of hierchy exist in nature. Such forms of hierchy would exist in anarchy as well. Corporations are hierchal in structure, and surely they would exist in an anarchy. Even governments could exist in an anarchy, as paradoxical as that sounds. The axiom that must not be violated is not so much one of "hierchy", but the one of voluntary choice. Wolves choose to enter a pack, people choose to be part of corporations, and if there was such a government where every citizen chose to be in it, anarchy would still be present. Why is voluntary choice so special? Voluntary choice is the most efficient and productive way of doing almost anything. Observe, again, the market. On the market, when two people undergo a transaction, they do so voluntarily. This means that person A values person B's property more than some piece of his own property, and vis versa. Because people are in a perpetual quest to make themselves happy, and what they value is presumed to make them happy, voluntary choice on a free market is THE MOST efficient system when it comes to meeting the desires and happiness of the people who participate, because individuals are most capable of knowing what they themselves want. In contrast, a COERCIVE hierchy such as the governments we know today go against individual volition by their very existence. Therefore, they can be called inefficient and non productive. This is only the theory of it, in practice, it's evident even moreso.