| sc94597 said: voluntary participation in organizations: Yes I think it will be more good than evil. Regulatory capture and limited liablility are probably the principal reasons why such organizations get away with the "huge levels of coercion, indoctrination, and downright abuse" that you talk about. In an anarchic society, they are not protected from being personally liable nor do they have state priveleges to outgun their non-compulsive competition. The rest of the population can hold them accountable for any damages they've done through cooperating against them. |
Right, they're not protected. No one is. So today, they need undue protection from the state to be able to "outgun" competition, i. e. the state failing. In an anarchist system, all they need to outgun competition is *to be physically able to*. As long as they're self-sufficient and powerful, they can handle "everyone cooperating against them". And who cares about accountability?
| sc94597 said: conflict resolution I don't know how people interact where you live, but where I live 99% of people want to get along with each-other and are indeed reasonable and fair. When that is the case, the other 1% can't really do too much. They are limited by the 99% cooperative people. |
I would like to live where you live, then, because here, 99% of people want to get along with each other and are indeed reasonable and fair... right up until the point when the situation involves money, sex, religion, class, sports and God knows what minor squabble they care about. Then they become hostile, vindictive and (passive-)aggressive and they use anything to get ahead, as long as they think they can get away with it.
| sc94597 said: By choosing "none of the above" how are you going to get your money? And if you are the other person, choosing "none of the above" how are you going to prevent your neighbor from using force to seek reparations or seeking others whom represent him to do so? If you choose to do nothing, his only course of action is to use force, and since you showed you aren't willing to cooperate other people will be on his side, putting you at a big disadvantage in the situation. |
EXACTLY! Exactly what I'm talking about. There's nothing preventing anyone from doing anything. There's nothing stopping me from going to his house tonight and taking what I fell he owes me and there's nothing stopping him from coming tomorrow and taking it back with interest.
And what do you mean, "I showed I'm not willing to cooperate"? It's a word against word. Remember, I don't have to say "there will be no judge", I can say I'd only consider [list of my friends] as a judge and that's it. What's going to happen next? Maybe the community decides a judge? Looks a bit like the state to me, mate. And it only relies on how many friends i have - if I have a lot of friends and he doesn't, the selected judge will be on my side. Where's the justice?
| sc94597 said: Anybody can be the judge. Like I said, it is a mutual agreement between the persons in conflict. They must both agree to him/her. What do you mean by "clear?" Is it not the judge's or the group of judge's responsibility to determine that? |
By "not being clear", I mean "Somebody stole my bag of grain last night and I don't know who." What's the judge to do? If I don't have to cooperate with the judge, he's impotent. If I do have to cooperate (to prevent the community from assuming my guilt and turning against me), then congratulations, we literally have a police state... where anybody can be the police and they don't even have to forge evidence.
| sc94597 said: The same way we deal with them today. If they try to harm you, you harm them back. Otherwise you ostracize them from society. With the internet and reputation databases, this wouldn't be hard to do at all. We already see things like this with Yelp, Uber, and Angie's List. Anybody who has commited such a crime, and doesn't want to pay reparations for it would easily be recognized as such by people who encounter him/her in the future (via background checks.) |
Wait, so violence as retribution is allowed? Because if not, I don't think an insane serial killer has to be that concerned about being ostracized. And holy c**p, have you not heard about that site where you can rate people that gathered immense resistance? You're actually down with that? Do you not realize how abused this can be?
| sc94597 said: Two things: It is just. Every country retains its autonomy, but progress is still made. The world is becoming a more peaceful and safer place. Sure the U.S gets away with a lot, but it also has done good. Also take note that the U.S won't be able to continue in the long-term doing what it does, even if it gets away with it for now. If the U.S only does the bad things it does in the long-term it will alienate itself from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world will choose to reciprocate with the U.S. Even with its size and stature, the U.S still cares what European states, China, Japan, etc think and is limited by them. Most of the examples you gave are effects of collectivization. The U.S doesn't do these things (climate change regulation, reduced war, etc) because there is either internal stife preventing it from doing so, or it isn't a rational entity with real costs. Individuals don't have these constraints. Individuals have full autonomy over themelves (no internal struggle) and they feel the costs of their actions. |
Calling the international community just is just baffling to me and I just cannot accept this, I'm sorry.
And I don't know why you refer to individuals as if they were the only thing that exist in anarchy. There will be organizations with their own internal strife and not being rational entities with real costs.
| sc94597 said: Now imagine that instead of approximately 200 actors (countries), there are thousands, millions, or billions. The ability for any one entity to have the level of influence over others that the U.S has becomes practically nothing, they are so vastly outnumbered by everybody else. |
Yes, imagine. Today, Armenia and Azerbaijan are at war. Do you know why? Do you know who's in the right? How do you "judge" them? Do you think less of any of them? You don't, do you? Because keeping track of even 200 actors is downright impossible. You keep track of the important ones and even at that, you can attain only a VERY limited knowledge about them. Consider BILLIONS.
| sc94597 said: There will always be outlaws who don't play by the rules, but that is true of any system. |
Sure, only in anarchism, their views and interests are just as valid as anyone else's.
