Dismatling Anarchism

"I'm saying that impersonating an officer should itself be a crime." John replied,

This is an excellent summarization of the argument for a ruling class. And I'm saying that no human has the right to make a law that tells others that they may not imitate him. Morally, such laws are a crime. Mr Dwyer continues to imply that "unauthorized" means "incompetent". There is no reason to believe such an obviously false equation. Simply repeating it won't make it valid.

By "incompetent," I meant incompetent to adhere to the government's rules and regulations regarding the use of retaliatory force. If you don't understand what these rules and regulations are, then you won't be able faithfully to adhere to them.

To give another example of what I'm talking about, suppose that you're practically blind, such that you can't see well enough to discharge a firearm accurately. Should you be allowed to become a police marksman? If not, then why should you be allowed to act as a police officer on behalf of the existing legal system, if you don't know its laws or enforcement procedures?

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/28, 3:59pm)

Post 41

Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 8:14am

Responding to post 40 by Mr Dwyer:

No one has a right to endanger others. But this does not mean that anyone has a right to decide in advance who will endanger others. Those who harm or endanger others need to be brought to justice, and this includes those who claim the right of prior restraint, the practice of which implies the ability to foretell the future.

If Mr Dwyer believes that some have the right to force others to undergo tests and investigations before being 'certified', does he also believe in the testing of the certifiers before they receive permits to practice the prognosticating art of certifying? Will there be prior restraint against the certification permitters to make certain that they are qualified before being authorized to issue permits to those who wish to issue certifications. What proofs of competence will be required of the authorizers of the permitters of the certifiers?

And why would anyone believe that just because all this prior approval has taken place, that we have any guarantee, given the free will of humans, of anything?

Mr Dwyer can cook up endless examples of blind pilots and gunslingers, but in a legal system that held individuals responsible for the consequences of their actions, blind people would not be motivated to act so irresponsibly. If they were that stupid, they would also be stupid enough to ignore the requirement to get a certificate from someone who had a permit from someone who was authorized.

Prior restraint and permission-giving are aggressions justified by the fiction of prognostication. Preventive law is aggression. Only punitive law is moral or necessary.

Post 42

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 6:21pm

John Howard wrote,

No one has a right to endanger others. But this does not mean that anyone has a right to decide in advance who will endanger others. Those who harm or endanger others need to be brought to justice, and this includes those who claim the right of prior restraint, the practice of which implies the ability to foretell the future.

John, I'm not clear what your position is. You say that no one has the right to endanger others. Well, a person who, let us say, drives a car recklessly, because he is so intoxicated that his vision and motor skills are severely impaired is endangering others in the process, even if he doesn't actually harm anyone. The same is true of an elderly driver whose central vision is interfered with due to age-related macular degeneration, or whose peripheral vision is narrowed due to glaucoma. Such a person becomes a hazard to other drivers. Do you agree that hazardous driving, whether from alcoholic intoxication or degenerative eye disease is a serious danger to other drivers and should, therefore, be illegal? Or is it your position that nothing should be done in either of these cases until someone is actually killed or injured? You write,

If Mr Dwyer believes that some have the right to force others to undergo tests and investigations before being 'certified', does he also believe in the testing of the certifiers before they receive permits to practice the prognosticating art of certifying?

Just as some agency (either a legislative majority or minority) must decide what laws are to be passed and some agency (a judiciary) must have final say on whether or not they've been violated, so some agency must be given the right to determine who fulfills the requirements of certification. The argument that you're making is a two edged sword that cuts both ways, because it could be used with equal force against any system, including the one that you advocate. There is no system of laws, rules or regulations that doesn't specify where the buck stops.

Will there be prior restraint against the certification permitters to make certain that they are qualified before being authorized to issue permits to those who wish to issue certifications. What proofs of competence will be required of the authorizers of the permitters of the certifiers?

Same argument. Someone must be entrusted with final authorization in any system of social organization, including yours.

And why would anyone believe that just because all this prior approval has taken place, that we have any guarantee, given the free will of humans, of anything?

There are no absolute guarantees, but we can make reasonable predictions based on a person's values, knowledge, ability and character. For example, I can predict with reasonable certainty that a person who believes in socialism will vote for a socialist candidate over a capitalist one, and that a person who believes in capitalism will vote for a capitalist candidate over a socialist one. I can also predict that a felon who has committed a string of robberies is far more likely to commit one in the future than John Howard or Bill Dwyer is.

Mr Dwyer can cook up endless examples of blind pilots and gunslingers, but in a legal system that held individuals responsible for the consequences of their actions, blind people would not be motivated to act so irresponsibly.

The blind marksman was an extreme example designed to illustrate a point, but if you want a more plausible one, there are intoxicated motorists as well as elderly drivers with bad vision who are very much motivated to drive their cars irresponsibly.

If they were that stupid, they would also be stupid enough to ignore the requirement to get a certificate from someone who had a permit from someone who was authorized.

It's not that cut and dried; they may be willing to act irresponsibly if it is legal, but not if it is illegal. For example, laws against drunk driving backed by severe penalties have reduced drunk-driving felonies dramatically in Sweden. For some reason, we're unwilling to take the same strict measures here in the U.S. Similarly, an elderly person with poor vision, who was unfit to drive might be willing to drive if it were legal, but not if it were illegal. The same is true of impersonating a police officer and enforcing private sentences. If any private individual could use retaliatory force against suspected criminals without being punished for it, many more people would be doing it. The reason you don't see more lynching is because there are laws against it, which are backed by fines and imprisonment.

Prior restraint and permission-giving are aggressions justified by the fiction of prognostication. Preventive law is aggression. Only punitive law is moral or necessary.

John, let me ask you a question. I gave an example previously of a young man who was planning to detonate a powerful bomb on one of the campuses here in Hayward. He had all the plans drawn up and the explosives set to go. Fortunately, he was stopped before he could carry out his plans. Are you saying that the police had no right to do anything until he actually detonated the device -- that to prevent him from detonating it would be preventive law and therefore aggression? I can't believe that that's your position, but it seems to follow logically from what you say.

- Bill

Post 43

Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 4:14pm

Responding to post 42 by Mr Dwyer:

Mr Dwyer offers the example of a blind man driving. If it is known that the driver is blind, it is right to stop him, but it is not right to stop him to find out if he is blind. In my post 41, I have said clearly that no one has the right to harm or endanger others. I clearly wrote "Those who harm or endanger others need to be brought to justice".

. Mr Dwyer immediately misrepresents my position to be that they do have the right to endanger others and should not be stopped until actual harm is done. There is no logical justification for such a mis-interpretation of my position.

Just as some agency (either a legislative majority or minority) must decide what laws are to be passed and some agency (a judiciary) must have final say on whether or not they've been violated, so some agency must be given the right to determine who fulfills the requirements of certification.

Mr Dwyer here begs the question and assumes what is being argued as if we are not debating about whether there should be certification, but only about who "must" do it. He is ignoring my point that his 'justification' for certification serves also as a justification for an infinite regress of permission giving. He is arguing that we "must" have just this much aggression and no more and no less. He offers no reason for this arbitrary amount of aggression. None of it is reasonable.

Someone must be entrusted with final authorization in any system of social organization, including yours.

Mr Dwyer continues to repeat his position that there "must" be political authority. This remains entirely unproven, unless we are going to stretch the meaning of �authority� to include every decision by every person. I have not used the word authority that way. I have used it to refer to some people who hold power over other people. In the case of harm/endangerment, there needs to be a trial. This does not require bosses who certify other people in advance of the crimes of harm/endangerment. I do not refer to a jury as an authority or a ruling class or government. That kind of word-gaming would be a further misrepresentation of my position.

The rest of Mr Dwyer�s post continues to imply the clearly false premise that I am advocating the right of people to threaten and endanger others. I have said the opposite clearly (see above). Mr Dwyer is beating on another straw man. This is beginning to look like a pattern of serial abuse targeting innocent straw persons.

Mr Dwyer can invent endless examples in which he has prior knowledge, and use them to draw endless conclusions about cases where he does not have prior knowledge. But they won�t be valid conclusions because they do not address the premises. Prior restraint, as I have used the term, means aggression before there is knowledge of harm or danger. It can not be justified, and saying "must" is simply insisting, not proving.

I will make this my last post on this thread since I can find nothing new that needs to be said to make my position more clear and I have found no posts that present arguments against my position. So far, there have merely been statements that there "must" be a class of rulers with a monopoly on force that the ruled do not share, apparently because there just has to be. It seems the premise is being used as some kind of axiom. For now, I quit.

Post 44

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 11:19pm

John Howard writes,

Mr Dwyer offers the example of a blind man driving.
To be precise, I offered the example, not of a blind man, but of an elderly person with poor eyesight.
If it is known that the driver is blind, it is right to stop him, but it is not right to stop him to find out if he is blind.
I agree.
In my post 41, I have said clearly that no one has the right to harm or endanger others. I clearly wrote "Those who harm or endanger others need to be brought to justice".

Mr Dwyer immediately misrepresents my position to be that they do have the right to endanger others and should not be stopped until actual harm is done. There is no logical justification for such a mis-interpretation of my position.

I agree. As I said in my previous, I was unclear as to your position, but after a more careful reading of what you said, I can see no warrant for my lack of clarity. I stand corrected.

Those who harm or endanger others need to be brought to justice, and this includes those who claim the right of prior restraint, the practice of which implies the ability to foretell the future.

Now I see what you were saying, and I agree.

I wrote, "Just as some agency (either a legislative majority or minority) must decide what laws are to be passed and some agency (a judiciary) must have final say on whether or not they've been violated, so some agency must be given the right to determine who fulfills the requirements of certification." John replied,

Mr Dwyer here begs the question and assumes what is being argued as if we are not debating about whether there should be certification, but only about who "must" do it.
Actually, I wasn't assuming that.
He is ignoring my point that his 'justification' for certification serves also as a justification for an infinite regress of permission giving.

I'm not ignoring it; I'm rebutting it. While there may be no warrant for requiring licensure or certification in a particular case, that requirement does not commit the fallacy of an infinite regress, which is the very point I was making in my rejoinder. If it did commit such a fallacy, then (on the premises of the infinite regress allegation) so would the idea that a judge should have final authority in deciding that a particular law has been violated. For if such a decision were required, then on the premises of the infinite regress argument, that decision would itself need to be evaluated by another judge, whose decision would in turn require evaluation by a still further judge, and so on ad infinitum. Obviously, someone -- some agent -- must have final authority in deciding whether or not the law has been violated. The buck has to stop somewhere, otherwise no final decision could ever be rendered, nor could justice ever be done. The fact that someone must render a final verdict in such matters does not mean that everyone is entitled to render it, nor, therefore, does it imply an infinite regress. By the same token, if certification were required, it would not follow that the certifiers must themselves be certified by other certifiers who in turn must be certified by still other certifiers, and so on to infinity.

I wrote, "Someone must be entrusted with final authorization in any system of social organization, including yours." John replied,

Mr Dwyer continues to repeat his position that there "must" be political authority. This remains entirely unproven, unless we are going to stretch the meaning of �authority� to include every decision by every person. I have not used the word authority that way. I have used it to refer to some people who hold power over other people.

Well, some people do hold power over other people if they determine a society's laws and rule on whether or not another person has violated them. Every practical form of social organization requires a legislature and a judiciary -- an agency that makes (or sanctions) the laws, and one that evaluates their adherence.

In the case of harm/endangerment, there needs to be a trial. This does not require bosses who certify other people in advance of the crimes of harm/endangerment.
I agree.
I do not refer to a jury as an authority or a ruling class or government. That kind of word-gaming would be a further misrepresentation of my position.

Well, a jury does constitute a form of authority insofar as it is authorized to rule on the fate of the accused, and a judiciary is part of the apparatus of government. The term "ruling class," which has Marxist connotations, does not apply to a just government, whose purpose is to protect its citizens against being ruled by others -- to defend their autonomy and their individual rights.

Mr Dwyer can invent endless examples in which he has prior knowledge, and use them to draw endless conclusions about cases where he does not have prior knowledge. But they won�t be valid conclusions because they do not address the premises. Prior restraint, as I have used the term, means aggression before there is knowledge of harm or danger. It can not be justified, and saying "must" is simply insisting, not proving.

Okay, but wouldn't you say, then, that if someone doesn't know the government's rules and regulations regarding the use of retaliatory force, he or she is endangering the rights of others by resorting to force in the absence of such knowledge, in the same way that a person who pilots a plane without adequate knowledge of how to fly one is endangering others in the process?

I will make this my last post on this thread since I can find nothing new that needs to be said to make my position more clear and I have found no posts that present arguments against my position. So far, there have merely been statements that there "must" be a class of rulers with a monopoly on force that the ruled do not share, apparently because there just has to be. It seems the premise is being used as some kind of axiom. For now, I quit.

Do you agree that someone or some group of people must decide what laws are to be enforced within a given jurisdictional domain? If you do, then would you also agree that that group has a monopoly on force, in the sense that no one else is permitted to enforce a different set of laws? If so, then you are advocating what I would call a "government."

- Bill

Post 45

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 10:14am

Since Mr Dwyer has revised his previous position, I will delay my decision to chime out of this debate just long enough to respond to his latest questions.

...wouldn't you say, then, that if someone doesn't know the government's rules and regulations regarding the use of retaliatory force, he or she is endangering the rights of others by resorting to force in the absence of such knowledge, in the same way that a person who pilots a plane without adequate knowledge of how to fly one is endangering others in the process?

No, it is wrong to legally define endangerment as a psychological state. It should only be defined as objective behavior. Psychology is not a science, it is guessing. Ignorance may or may not lead to endangering others, but until it does, it is innocent. Someone who does not know the law may nevertheless do justice and someone who does know the law may nevertheless do injustice. Not knowing how to fly a plane is not the same thing as flying a plane dangerously. It is the act that counts. We do not need the pretense of mind reading (psychology). We merely need to judge acts. We can see that a plane is being flown dangerously. We can not see the mind of the pilot and we don�t need to. Juries can acquit in cases where they decide that endangerment or harm is accidental or the result of honest error.

Do you agree that someone or some group of people must decide what laws are to be enforced within a given jurisdictional domain?

I have answered that question in my first post (#2) of this thread. I believe in universal suffrage as the source of all law making. If Mr Dwyer wants to stretch the word �legislature� to mean simply universal suffrage so that he can say that I am advocating a legislature, he can stretch away.

I have made it clear that I believe that disputes should be settled by juries. And I will add that judges are not necessary. Juries are judges. If Mr Dwyer wants to stretch the word �judiciary� to mean simply voluntary juries so that he can say that I believe in a judiciary, he can stretch away.

If Mr Dwyer then wants to stretch the word �government� to include the system I am advocating, of universal voluntary suffrage, universal qualification for voluntary jury service and universal membership in voluntary law enforcement so that he can say that I am advocating government, he can stretch away.

If you do, then would you also agree that that group has a monopoly on force, in the sense that no one else is permitted to enforce a different set of laws?

Mr Dwyer consistently mixes these two questions: which laws and which enforcers. I have answered both of these questions repeatedly. I advocate one set of laws and universal membership in law enforcement. If Mr Dwyer wants to stretch the word �monopoly� to refer to these conditions, he can stretch away.

But I believe it is a better use of language to say that I am an anarchist/capitalist who is opposed to anyone having a legal monopoly on the use of force. And I am convinced that I have made my position clear and have read no convincing arguments against it. Time to quit.

Post 46

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 1:54pm

I wrote (to John Howard), "[W]ouldn't you say, then, that if someone doesn't know the government's rules and regulations regarding the use of retaliatory force, he or she is endangering the rights of others by resorting to force in the absence of such knowledge, in the same way that a person who pilots a plane without adequate knowledge of how to fly one is endangering others in the process?" He replied,

No, it is wrong to legally define endangerment as a psychological state. It should only be defined as objective behavior.
Well, the objective behavior is the action the person takes without the necessary knowledge to perform it properly.
Psychology is not a science, it is guessing.
Whoa! There is no guesswork involved in the knowledge that someone doesn't know how to fly a plane. If it is known that he doesn't possess that knowledge, then he shouldn't be allowed to fly.
Ignorance may or may not lead to endangering others, but until it does, it is innocent. Someone who does not know the law may nevertheless do justice and someone who does know the law may nevertheless do injustice.

Someone who is drunk may nevertheless not cause an accident, and someone who is not drunk may nevertheless cause an accident. Does that mean that there should be no laws against drunk driving -- that we have to wait until a drunk driver actually causes an accident before we can arrest him? No, we can take preventive action; we can prohibit him from driving in the first place.

The more pertinent question is, what constitutes "endangerment." Endangerment does not imply actual harm, as you've acknowledged. What it does imply is an increased potential to harm someone. So, if you're driving recklessly, you may not actually cause an accident, but you're increasing the likelihood of causing one, which is what makes such driving "dangerous." The same is true of someone who doesn't know how to drive, who hasn't had the proper training. He or she may be lucky enough to avoid an accident, but that doesn't make the person's driving any less dangerous. Like an intoxicated motorist, an incompetent driver poses an unacceptable risk to other drivers, and should not be allowed on the road.

In the same way, someone who undertakes to enforce the law without knowing what the law actually is or how it should be enforced poses a danger to others, even if he should happen to employ force without actually violating their rights. I agree with you that actions are required in order for a person to be arrested, but driving while intoxicated is an action. Years ago, I saw a guy stagger from one edge of the sidewalk to the other in a drunken stupor, fall down between two parked cars, get up, get in one of the cars and drive away. Should he not have been arrested for driving under the influence, even if he didn't happen to hit anyone?

Not knowing how to fly a plane is not the same thing as flying a plane dangerously. It is the act that counts. We do not need the pretense of mind reading (psychology). We merely need to judge acts.

I agree that not knowing how to fly a plane is not the same thing as flying a plane dangerously, but flying a plane without the proper knowledge is the same thing as flying a plane dangerously, and it is that that should be prohibited.

We can see that a plane is being flown dangerously. We can not see the mind of the pilot and we don�t need to.

We don't need to know if the pilot is competent to fly a plane before allowing him to do so? We have to wait until he is actually in the air in order to discover whether or not he knows what he's doing?? Are you serious? By then, it's too late.

Juries can acquit in cases where they decide that endangerment or harm is accidental or the result of honest error.

Whom are they going to acquit? The pilot? He died in the ensuing plane crash along with the passengers and the family whose house he landed on.

I wrote, "Do you agree that someone or some group of people must decide what laws are to be enforced within a given jurisdictional domain?"

I have answered that question in my first post (#2) of this thread. I believe in universal suffrage as the source of all law making. If Mr Dwyer wants to stretch the word �legislature� to mean simply universal suffrage so that he can say that I am advocating a legislature, he can stretch away.

A legislature is defined as a law-making body. If a majority of voters are the law-making body, then they are per force a legislature.

I have made it clear that I believe that disputes should be settled by juries. And I will add that judges are not necessary. If Mr Dwyer wants to stretch the word �judiciary� to mean simply voluntary juries so that he can say that I believe in a judiciary, he can stretch away.

If an impartial judge isn't necessary to preside over and regulate courtroom proceedings, then who would perform that function? You can't expect the 12 jurors to do it.

Juries are judges.

Yes, in the broader sense of the term "judge," but the primary function of a jury is to weigh the evidence, not govern its presentation.

If Mr Dwyer then wants to stretch the word �government� to include the system I am advocating, of universal voluntary suffrage, universal qualification for voluntary jury service and universal membership in voluntary law enforcement so that he can say that I am advocating government, he can stretch away.

Very well, let's take your "universal suffrage," which you claim is not a government, and apply it. Suppose that a majority of voters are racist whites who vote in laws that deny blacks their civil rights. Are you saying that there is no government here that is oppressing blacks -- that there is no white "ruling class"?

I wrote, "If you do [agree that someone or some group of people must decide what laws are to be enforced], then would you also agree that that group has a monopoly on force, in the sense that no one else is permitted to enforce a different set of laws?

Mr Dwyer consistently mixes these two questions: which laws and which enforcers. I have answered both of these questions repeatedly. I advocate one set of laws and universal membership in law enforcement. If Mr Dwyer wants to stretch the word �monopoly� to refer to these conditions, he can stretch away.

Well, John, I'd say that your majority rule is a government to those people who don't agree with its laws but are nevertheless "governed" by them. A system in which some people pass laws governing others is a government. I don't know what else you would call it. It is certainly not the absence of government.

But I believe it is a better use of language to say that I am an anarchist/capitalist who is opposed to anyone having a legal monopoly on the use of force.

Well, the system you favor is one in which a majority of voters holds the exclusive right to determine what laws are to be enforced against a minority of dissenters. If that isn't a monopoly on the use of force, then the phrase has no meaning.

And I am convinced that I have made my position clear and have read no convincing arguments against it. Time to quit.

You're quitting again? This is getting to be a habit. Why not stick around; you might learn something. ;-)

- Bill

Post 47

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - 3:05am

There is no guesswork involved in the knowledge that someone doesn't know how to fly a plane. If it is known that he doesn't possess that knowledge, then he shouldn't be allowed to fly.

But the question remains, how do we know? You say their is no guesswork involved, but I don't see where you explained how we know.

Someone who is drunk may nevertheless not cause an accident, and someone who is not drunk may nevertheless cause an accident. Does that mean that there should be no laws against drunk driving -- that we have to wait until a drunk driver actually causes an accident before we can arrest him? No, we can take preventive action; we can prohibit him from driving in the first place.

As Marrota would say, you are stuck in a governmentalist mode of thinking. Who is we? Even in an objectivist minarchist society the roads would be privately owned, so the owner could set whatever rules concerning their use that he wished.

We don't need to know if the pilot is competent to fly a plane before allowing him to do so? We have to wait until he is actually in the air in order to discover whether or not he knows what he's doing?? Are you serious? By then, it's too late.

How would you prevent it? Unless you chain everyone up and have the SWAT team storm all airports searching for posession of the proper papers, you can't. Bill, if someone wants to fly a plane without your sacred permission, they can and will, do it! But how likely is this?

Whom are they going to acquit? The pilot? He died in the ensuing plane crash along with the passengers and the family whose house he landed on.

What does this prove? I can give you examples from our current justice system of people who died before they were brought to trial, so what exactly is your point there?

Post 48

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - 10:43am

Jonathan,

Thanks for weighing in on this. It was beginning to look like a private conversation (argument?) between me and John. Nice to have your input, as I consider you one of the more astute members on ROR and am always interested in what you have to say.

I wrote, "There is no guesswork involved in the knowledge that someone doesn't know how to fly a plane. If it is known that he doesn't possess that knowledge, then he shouldn't be allowed to fly." You replied,

But the question remains, how do we know? You say their is no guesswork involved, but I don't see where you explained how we know.

That's a different issue. My only point was that if one knew that a person wasn't competent to fly -- say, he was your son and you knew that he didn't have the proper training -- you would have no right to allow him to fly your plane, since he would be putting others at risk. One way of ensuring that untrained pilots do not put other people's lives at undue risk is to require a pilot's license. Under laissez-faire capitalism, private airports would almost certainly require such a license, since they would be liable for allowing untrained or otherwise incompetent (e.g., intoxicated) pilots to use their runways.

I wrote, "Someone who is drunk may nevertheless not cause an accident, and someone who is not drunk may nevertheless cause an accident. Does that mean that there should be no laws against drunk driving -- that we have to wait until a drunk driver actually causes an accident before we can arrest him? No, we can take preventive action; we can prohibit him from driving in the first place."

As Marrota would say, you are stuck in a governmentalist mode of thinking. Who is we? Even in an objectivist minarchist society the roads would be privately owned, so the owner could set whatever rules concerning their use that he wished.

I agree, and if he wanted people to live in his area and use his roads, he would prohibit drunk driving, because it would pose a hazard to other drivers. If the roads were publicly owned, the state would regulate their use.

I wrote, "We have to wait until he [the pilot] is actually in the air in order to discover whether or not he knows what he's doing?? Are you serious? By then, it's too late."

How would you prevent it? Unless you chain everyone up and have the SWAT team storm all airports searching for possession of the proper papers, you can't.

As I indicated above, since the owners of airports would be liable for any damages resulting from pilot incompetence, they would undoubtedly require any pilot using their runways to have a license.

Bill, if someone wants to fly a plane without your sacred permission, they can and will, do it! But how likely is this?

Probably not that likely, but remember, the pilot example was simply to illustrate the point that if someone is going to use force, he or she needs to be properly trained in the laws and procedures governing its use. The government cannot permit just anyone to enforce the law. If it does, it is putting the public at undue risk of having their rights violated.

I wrote, "Whom are they going to acquit [for flying without the proper training]? The pilot? He died in the ensuing plane crash along with the passengers and the family whose house he landed on."

What does this prove? I can give you examples from our current justice system of people who died before they were brought to trial, so what exactly is your point there?

My point was to illustrate the importance of preventive law. Rather than wait until an incompetent pilot crashes into someone's house, because he doesn't know how to land a plane, he should not be allowed to fly in the first place. Similarly, rather than wait until an untrained police officer violates someone's rights, because he doesn't know the rules governing retaliatory force, he should not be allowed to use force in the first place.

- Bill

Post 49

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - 11:30am

Feel free to quit, John, as your arguments never answer anything as to how your ideas can possibly work. For example, universal suffrage for all law-making, simply not possible without a structure. You intend that 4 billion people vote on everything? Or is it 300 million in the continental US? Or what? Do the 4 billion vote on it to decide and then sub-decide? If everyone introduced 1 measure, would we have 4 billion measures to vote on? 4 billion means of enforcing the law? Divide the number all you want, at some point there are disagreements and with anarchy, no means to make a decision. Sure - a group of business men can come up with systems without going to war with each other, but that exists within a context that they know they cannot take up arms. How does one determine the size and makeup of the jury? Your NEVER present any practical argument as to how one would actually do any of what you espouse. All you do is poke holes in any organizing structure whatsoever. How about this:

1) Tell me how laws are voted on by 4 billion people - who presents a law? How do I vote?
2) How does a crime get defined? What if everyone disagrees? What if the majority decide it is murder to have an abortion? Who decides which law to follow and where? I have a large backing of people and police who will now charge you with murder, I have juries and the whole shebang - what do you do?

Post 50

Thursday, December 7, 2006 - 2:59am

Bill, thanks for your kind words. Earlier on this thread, you agreed with me, but said that what I was advocating was not anarchism. I more or less agree with you here, although it does not sound like you are advocating government solutions.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, private airports would almost certainly require such a license, since they would be liable for allowing untrained or otherwise incompetent (e.g., intoxicated) pilots to use their runways.

I agree that private airports would probably require pilots licenses, just like road owners would require a drivers license. So the problem can be addressed without resorting to government.

The government cannot permit just anyone to enforce the law. If it does, it is putting the public at undue risk of having their rights violated.

But by granting the government the power to enforce preventative laws, I believe we place the public at undue risk of having their rights violated. In other words, I do not believe the burden of proof should be on the individual to prove to the government that he has not and is not going to commit a crime. This is why, although I don't know the exhaustive scope of Sarbanes-Oxley, based on reading ARI editorials I would favor repealing it. Unfortunately there is no way to prevent a truly determined criminal. I believe the best approach is to punish those have have committed a crime.

Post 51

Thursday, December 7, 2006 - 11:14am

I wrote, "The government cannot permit just anyone to enforce the law. If it does, it is putting the public at undue risk of having their rights violated." Jonathan replied,

But by granting the government the power to enforce preventative laws, I believe we place the public at undue risk of having their rights violated. In other words, I do not believe the burden of proof should be on the individual to prove to the government that he has not and is not going to commit a crime.

Jonathan, I agree with you that "preventative law," in the sense that you are using that term, is illegitimate -- illegitmate not because it places the public at undue risk of having their rights violated, but because it actually does violate their rights. A person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The kind of "preventative law" I'm talking about would outlaw actions that pose an undue risk of harm to others, because such actions are themselves a violation of rights.

To take a simple example, suppose that I have a six-barrel revolver containing a single bullet and that I spin the barrel, point the gun at you and pull the trigger. If the gun doesn't go off, because the bullet isn't in the right chamber, have I violated your rights? You bet I have. Since I had no knowledge of where the bullet would wind up, I've put you an undue risk of being killed. My actions amount to reckless endangerment. A law that prevents me from engaging in this kind of behavior could be termed a "preventative law," because it is designed to prevent the harm that could otherwise result.

Similarly, suppose that I have no knowledge of what kind of force is legally permitted against those who are suspected of committing a crime. If I'm permitted to use whatever force I deem appropriate, even though, for all I know, it may be illegal, I'm putting the rights of others at undue risk, because my judgment of what kind of force is proper will almost certainly conflict with the existing legal guidelines.

This is why, although I don't know the exhaustive scope of Sarbanes-Oxley, based on reading ARI editorials I would favor repealing it. Unfortunately there is no way to prevent a truly determined criminal. I believe the best approach is to punish those have have committed a crime.

I agree that no one should be punished who has not committed a crime, but the issue here is what kind of acts should be considered crimes. Reckless endangement that does not eventuate in actual harm should nevertheless be illegal. A person who resorts to force without understanding the rules governing its use is engaging in reckless endangerment, because he risks subjecting others to the kind of force that violates the law.

- Bill

Post 52

Friday, December 8, 2006 - 4:35am

Hey Dustin I'm an anarchist and stumbled across this board so I'm going to try and refute your points. (unfortunately, I can't figure out the damn quote function on these boards....sorry....)

"To claim hierarchy should not exist in the workplace, though, should lead one to simply staying unemployed. An employer is running their own business. Their hiring you to work for them means you've got to fit their criteria, or you're not going to be a part of their business. Everyone has a right to their own business endeavors. No one should be obligated to hire anyone if they do not adequately perform a job. In the case people cannot get hired, they should be able to use their own individual effort to succeed and achieve happiness. For most anarchists, unemployment is barely an obstacle to living. Many I have known have been deeply involved in DIY living."

Actually, in anarchism, no-one has a right to their own business endeavours. That is, they do not have a right to exploitation which in a marxist sense (pretty much all anarchists are marxists apart from anarcho-capitalists and the old, outdated, everyone-owns-their-own-business petty bourgeois anarchists) means that they do not have a right to make a profit from the work that has been done by their employees, or make a profit purely on account of owning something.

And furthermore no-one would "hire" anyone in anarchism. Waged work would not exist; people would be organised into neighbourhood councils and regional government would have temporary, instantly recallable elected delegates meeting in a federal council of all the neighbourhoods involved. Using these institutions people could organise what needs to be produced, what jobs need to be done etc, and delegate tasks to the neighbourhood councils who would allocate resources as they see fit. The workplace would be run democratically in a workers council or simply be elected the person in charge.

The idea is very simple, alienation in work is abolished and work is done for the useful end product and not for profit.

"Government must exist to protect laws, the environment, and individual rights. Taxation, military draft, and the idea of disarming a population are initiations of force by the government. A government separate from economics is just as good as one separate from religion."

Anarchism does have a "government;" the government is everyone and the government institutions are the tool of the people. The laws of our modern governments are founded on protecting property from the majority. The state is bourgeois and no matter how much "reforms" it undergoes to sate the poor it will never act against the interests of the bourgeois; socialist parties existing in "liberal democracy" are a farce because a) socialism can only be attained by the common man not by political parties and b) at least in my country (UK) the bourgeois exact dictatorial control over the military and would stage a coup if capitalist were ever threatened.

"Anarchy in practice is socialism in regards to economics. Socialism is a political system that denies the validity of property rights. Instead, it claims that all property is communally owned (see market anarchism). Anarchists will claim the idea of anarchy refutes political systems, though in practice an anarchist market is socialism. It is collectivism. Everyone is forced to share property, possessions, and forfeit privacy."

Yes, anarchism is necassarily socialist.

Property is a social abstraction, theft, and so long as you still have access to commodities who really cares if you "own" it or not? And besides, commodities would be in such an abundance (especially with a socialist industry where the ridiculous fear of overproduction is gone, and now with the internet music, literature, education, and digital entertainment can be free for all) there would be no need to limit their supply; but marxists never mean small toys, utilities, or whatever when they refer to abolishing property. They refer to ownership of industry, land, real estate, or any form of property that requires the repressive bourgeois state's defense. But how many people own even their own house nowadays? I'm working class, as are most people, and we own nothing of value. So why would we be afraid of the loss of property rights? The bourgeois have already abolished almost all property in society, with virtually all people proletarianised. (a proletarian is not an industrial or manual worker, it is somebody who has to sell their labour to the bourgeois for a living)

And what do you mean forfeit privacy?

"The idea of a crime free, communal society is simply not rational. To claim "There would be no gangs of looters" is a claim not within reason. There are gangs of looters and criminals today, with welfare readily available and outlets to survive around most corners. Crime would only increase with the abolition of laws. Without laws, human beings have no boundaries of respect and tolerance set for one another. Laws are to be decided by groups of people, but what group and how big? The idea of a local or small governing group arising under the anarchist systems refutes the original idea of anarchy - no government."

A regular police force is a relatively new concept, and was invented only under the birth of modern capitalism (first reg police force invented in UK in 1800) with the function of enforcing bourgeois expropriation and defending bourgeois property. The only major role of law enforcement would be to stop murderers and rapists, and communities can easily organise citizen militias to catch criminals.

"Anarchy in practice is confusion, collectivism, and primitive. The idea that society cannot elect it's own local, state, and/or federal leaders to represent them is a way to dishearten the people and their influence in their own government. Working to achieve a proper government will provide better results then working to abolish infrastructure and current self governing groups or bodies."

Haha.

Post 53

Friday, December 8, 2006 - 6:01am

Your post seemed surprising to me just since it's been a long time since dealing with 'left anarchists'. Realize that when anyone else on this forum mentions anarchy, they are anarcho-capitalists - or perhaps "old, outdated, everyone-owns-their-own-business petty bourgeois anarchists".

Post 54

Friday, December 8, 2006 - 8:02am

True that - not often is there a slave lover in here, one who craves the tribal bunkum of all for all... which, in practice, comes to slaves for the leaders....

Post 55

Friday, December 8, 2006 - 1:33pm

Comrade Matthew,

Waged work would not exist; people would be organised into neighbourhood councils and regional government would have temporary, instantly recallable elected delegates meeting in a federal council of all the neighbourhoods involved. Using these institutions people could organise what needs to be produced, what jobs need to be done etc, and delegate tasks to the neighbourhood councils who would allocate resources as they see fit. ...

The idea is very simple ...

This "idea" DOES seem simple, so simple that it might have missed integrating key aspects of humanity. This "idea" can appear so perfectly simple, when it is not being applied to reality. Applied to reality -- as it was , in the 20th Century in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Red China -- it leaves mountains of corpses and rivers of blood. More than 100 million people lost their lives prematurely due to this horrific experiment with "a simple idea."

... people would be organised into neighbourhood councils and regional government would have temporary, instantly recallable elected delegates meeting in a federal council of all the neighbourhoods involved.

Aka: localized pockets of 'Mob Rule'

Using these institutions people could organise what needs to be produced, what jobs need to be done etc, and delegate tasks to the neighbourhood councils who would allocate resources as they see fit. ...

And how do "people" "organise" production? By majority vote? Who produces? Whoever had been "voted" to produce? What if the "elected" "producer" refuses to accept the "elected" responsibility to produce at the "elected" level -- if at all? Do we "elect" a punishment for her -- for not 'towing the elected line'?

What if this 'elected producer' had a different dream about what to do with her life? A dream other than that which had been 'elected' for her? What is the "solution" for the individuals, individuals who have an idea of what it is that they want to do with their lives? What if there is a part of humanity -- where folks routinely have personal dreams about what they want to do with their lives -- that cannot be erased by a mere code of collectivism? What then, Comrade?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Ed

Post 56

Friday, December 8, 2006 - 2:15pm

Comrade Matthew,

Property is a social abstraction, theft, and so long as you still have access to commodities who really cares if you "own" it or not? And besides, commodities would be in such an abundance (especially with a socialist industry where the ridiculous fear of overproduction is gone, and now with the internet music, literature, education, and digital entertainment can be free for all) there would be no need to limit their supply;

I can see that this Utopian dream (if you can call it a "dream") really has a firm foothold in your psyche, Comrade. Let me ask you: What if there were 3 people stranded for the rest of their lives on an island? With 2 of them, both female, believing wholeheartedly in your words above, and 1 of them, a male, harboring an "individual" dream about what to do with his life?

And what if it were 2 collectivist males, and one individualist female?

It sounds very much like 2 wolves and a lamb, deciding on what's for dinner -- doesn't it, Comrade?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/08, 2:16pm)

Post 57

Friday, December 8, 2006 - 2:32pm

Comrade Matthew, have you ever seen Hitler's 25 point party platform? Here are some of the points ...

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. ...

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. ...

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. ...

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. ...

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/nca_vol4/1708-ps.htm

Comrade, there are 14 points highlighted above, I invite you to consider picking a few of them and putting forth comment.

Ed

Post 58

Friday, December 8, 2006 - 4:52pm

Property is a social abstraction, theft,

So property is theft? What is theft? Unlawfully taking somone's property. Stolen concept anyone?

Post 59

Friday, December 8, 2006 - 7:46pm