Saffire

Wow that's interesting, I've never heard of a straight guy who doesn't care much about boobs. I'm attracted to guys. Sexuality is a really odd thing. I hope that's one of the things scientists figure out in my lifetime.

Originally I was a conservative Republican (a neo-con). But then I gave it some serious thought and realized what a disaster Bush has been. So I became a libertarian, and I have been that for a few years now. But it was only in the last few months that I became aware of Austrian economics... when Ron Paul was freaking out in the Republican primaries about a "gold standard" I thought that sounded like the silliest thing ever. But then I researched it and realized it actually makes quite a lot of sense... then I found out about Murray Rothbard and I started listening to Stefan Molyneux podcasts. http://www.freedomainradio.com You can listen to his first podcast on the right side of his page. But set aside some time for it, because it's pretty lengthy. Kind of like my own rambling on here ;)

Along with your "gay" tag, I'm going to go out on a limb here and wonder if you're not of the other persuasion... join me on the dark side! ;)

Outside? God how I miss it... one of these days I'll get one of those tiny laptops and author my posts from outdoor French cafes. And you're right, I should have made it more clear I'm not a violent anarchist. I get my ideas about anarchy from Murray Rothbard (he's an Austrian economist). I think the transition to anarchy will be violent, however. But it's absolutely justified. Governments throughout history typically grow until they overtake society and destroy it, then they're quickly replaced by another government (because the taxation apparatus still exists and the citizens had their guns taken from them by the previous government). This is helped along more quickly by the fact they print fiat money, which inevitably becomes worthless after a few really expensive wars. I honestly do believe this was the wisdom of the second amendment in the American constitution. Jefferson had in mind that there would be a revolution every so often, to keep government small. Unfortunately even that seems a tad idealistic today, because I'm sure Jefferson would have balked at the size and scope of American power today.

Aw, she didn't get to see it. I have a feeling she kinda knew he'd be elected, though. (Assuming he is, which I'm fairly certain he will be... but I might be eating my words tomorrow evening).

Very cute, Kackie! Looks like Swarovski crystals. (sp?)

This is the same argument my uncle uses to explain his support for Obama. It's sort of similar to Plato's contention that the republic must be managed by "philosopher-kings" who are the wisest among us.

Hey HorrificAttack, your smile isn't that creepy. Just open your eyes a bit. ;) Here's another pic of me.

Boobs? Bleh. :P

A Radioheader who likes McCain? I've seen everything! ;)

Anarchy doesn't currently exist in any enlightened society because we haven't yet advanced to that stage. Remember we've only recently (in the last few hundred years) gotten to the point where we can have representative government. It's just beginning to become apparent that even representative government can become oppressive by ignoring the constitution it was bound to. I also believe that as technology advances, anarchy will become a more clearly sensible alternative. We may see anarcho-capitalism take hold at some point in the next century, possibly in our lifetimes. The internet is sort of planting the seeds for a widespread demand that government butt out of our lives. Not registering with a DRO would be a terrible idea, because nobody would do business with you. That includes your credit card company, or any private business for that matter. You become a liability and you open yourself to possible vigilante activity. Because there's no public land, you wouldn't be welcome in parks or on roads. People would be alerted to the presence of a rogue in their area and DROs would take actions to keep a close eye on you. Your DRO would protect you from these rogues (they'd be few and far between). They would alert all private security forces in the area. If you're attacked by a rogue (they get by the security), you have a right to self-defense because that's written in your DRO contract. The American justice system is extremely corrupt. The rich can afford better lawyers, minorities are prosecuted at higher rates, people bring frivolous lawsuits, etc. Private justice systems that compete and cooperate would be infinitely better.

Your point? Don't we also have private security forces, bodyguards, etc? Today's market isn't free. The government takes half of what people earn. If someone murders a person, both their DROs would have to deal with the liability and bad press. Assuming they weren't insured by the same DROs, the two organizations would have to cooperate to determine the correct course of action. Assuming they haven't discovered the person who committed the act, they'll have to investigate the crime and find enough evidence to show who did it. Remember they are incentivized to prosecute the right guy. If the evidence isn't sufficient, the DRO supporting the accused will lose a lot of business - after all, why register with that DRO if they don't do their best to protect you in a dispute? But if it's clear he committed the crime, the DROs would be equally pressed to issue a fair punishment, one that doesn't scare away customers. This is exactly the same reason people choose to live in America (under our relatively fair justice system) rather than in Iran. But in an anarchic society the process of selecting your DRO would probably be pretty mundane. Finally, DROs would likely farm out their punishment system to a third party business that specializes in labor camps, jails, whatever.

Well here, let's look at the current situation and then I'll explain why I expect an anarchic society could easily overcome the problems you describe. Currently we have a police force. Basically it's a bunch of guys who dress up in blue costumes, and they're given guns and clubs. They roam the streets looking for criminal behavior, and when they find it they subdue the criminals and put them in cages. This scenario relies heavily on trust. First, we have to trust that the people in charge of the police (the commissioner, sheriff, politicians, etc) aren't going to use them to execute their own objectives. Second, we have to trust the individual cops won't use their elevated status in society to steal (after all, they aren't paid a lot of money), or frame their enemies for committing crimes. Finally we have to trust that the police won't band together and overtake their employers, creating their own local government! All these things sound silly on the surface (and indeed some of them actually occur) but this is because they occur oh-so-rarely. ___________________________________________________________________ In an anarchic society, we would still have crime. We'd have murder, rape, etc. This is not a paradise! BUT - The range of methods for preventing criminal activity would be unlimited. First, there would be far better security systems. The private sector has invented all manner of defense - guns, tasers, motion-activated lights, credit cards (rather than cash), cameras, etc. Prosecution of criminals wouldn't be handled by a single corrupt judicial system as it is now. Recall that our current judicial system typically punishes minorities more harshly, and women more leniently. At this point I'm going to describe what Stefan Molyneux calls the "DRO". When two people enter into a contract together, they will first agree upon a Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO) they are willing to defer to in the event they have a disagreement. The DRO would oversee the contract's signing and warn both parties in advance of the consequences of not meeting its standards. Various DRO's would compete and cooperate when necessary. People would subscribe to the DRO that provides them with the best protection and the least interference in their daily lives. You can hear a lot more detail about an anarcho-capitalist society at http://www.freedomainradio.com

Mornings! But on the days I go to the gym, it's right after I'm done working out, which is in the afternoon.

Tnspieler1012, my only contention is that the vast majority of people are solely interested in their own wellbeing, and are willing to think logically to create maximum benefits for themselves. Sure, there are minorities who put aside self-interest in order to hurt others. And there are people who don't always think logically. But on the whole, the % of society that falls into this latter group wouldn't increase if government suddenly vanished! People would still be cooperating, signing contracts, exchanging goods/services, etc. The element of trust would be intact because the alternative - no trust - benefits no one. So ask yourselves: is anarchy extremely idealistic? Or just realistic? I think it's government propaganda that society would suddenly devolve into a state of chaos if we didn't have them around.

Anarchy isn't a "system" in the way government is. This is precisely the reason it is more stable than government ever could be - nobody has a monopoly on violence. Trust is what makes society tick. The vast majority of human interaction is based on voluntary contracts and trust. Government has nothing to do with it. If you choose to not pay your bills, your credit score will take a hit - you pay your bills on time because you want to avoid the inconvenience that comes from a lower credit score, not because someone has a gun to your head. And yes, I feel it necessary to patronize anyone who advocates such a terrible system as centralized government, which has its root in violence.

If anyone attempted to start a government, they'd quickly be put down by a competing security firm. Anarchy isn't chaos, it is the recognition that society is based on the principle of voluntary exchange of value. Government adds no value to society because its social contracts are based on the instigation of force.

So you're saying any privately-managed security business has the potential to become a government, and therefore anarchy is dangerous? It sounds like an admission government is a bad thing to me.

Fascinating. So you believe we should have an institution with a monopoly on the use of force and violence? Let me ask you: Does the existence of a government make people nicer or more logical? Does it change the nature of humanity fundamentally?

Government is one of those things, that in theory sounds brilliant and in a perfect world would be great, the world sadly is not perfect, people are corrupt and they would fuck it up for everyone else.

Nope, but I watch Glenn Beck on CNN sometimes. I read that he's going to move to Fox News soon, so that should be interesting. He gets a little apocalyptic for my taste when it comes to terrorism, though.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk]YouTube - Peggy Joseph Thinks She Won't Need To Worry About Paying For Her Gas And Mortgage Under Barack Obama[/ame]

Most things I want these days are worth more than $50 million. :(

Of course I believe in Viva la Vida - it is the view that you should live your own life! Not anybody else's. That's what anarchy is all about.

Bob Barr?!? I wish I had gone to your school. What university is it, just out of curiosity?