Anarchism

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Government =/= statism.

Yes, anarchism has governments. Statism has governments with a monopoly on the initiation of force.

[Sociobiology]

You have yet to demonstrate how. And changing someone's post without showing what you changed is against the rules.

All states, throughout history, have never acted purely altruistically and for the community that controls them. They have initiated force against their populations for victimless crimes.

the same could be said for every society to ever exist.

[Genivaria]

You have yet to demonstrate how. And changing someone's post without showing what you changed is against the rules.

All states, throughout history, have never acted purely altruistically and for the community that controls them. They have initiated force against their populations for victimless crimes.

And a stateless society would be 100% altrusitic 100% of the time how exactly?

[Sociobiology]

Government =/= statism.

Yes, anarchism has governments. Statism has governments with a monopoly on the initiation of force.

define government, because the normal definition is a specialized group of policy makers for a society.
do you mean governance?

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Yes, yes it is, as it is in organized self-defense.

The courts define your rights incorrectly, as your rights include anything you can do that does not violate another's rights (the maximization of rights). I've never seen a court do this, but if it did, I would applaud it.

So, this "right" has some sort of metaphysical existence outside the letter of the laws, and the guarantee by the government as to what you can do and what you are protected from.

No, it isn't metaphysical. I'm not pulling a "natural" rights argument. I'm saying the anarchist proposed system of rights is that there is no "victimless crime".

[Genivaria]

Government =/= statism.

Yes, anarchism has governments. Statism has governments with a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Of course they do, and that's a good thing.
States that don't have a monopoly on force are more aptly called 'failed states'.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Government =/= statism.

Yes, anarchism has governments. Statism has governments with a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Let's correct that:

Having a State=/= statism.

In fact, I rather like having a state, which has a military to protect me if our nation is ever invaded, or to arrest dangerous criminals with police officers.

[Genivaria]

Yes, anarchism has governments. Statism has governments with a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Let's correct that:

Having a State=/= statism.

In fact, I rather like having a state, which has a military to protect me if our nation is ever invaded, or to arrest dangerous criminals with police officers.

Both of which are better trained then any minutemen militia would ever be.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Yes, anarchism has governments. Statism has governments with a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Of course they do, and that's a good thing.
States that don't have a monopoly on force are more aptly called 'failed states'.

This is the fundamental split. A monopoly on the initiation of force means the state can, and as it has shown, WILL, initiate force. Using force against a murder is not initiated force, as the murder initiated force. Using force against a tax evader, a drug user or a hippie commune is an initiation of force, as their crimes are victimless.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So, this "right" has some sort of metaphysical existence outside the letter of the laws, and the guarantee by the government as to what you can do and what you are protected from.

No, it isn't metaphysical. I'm not pulling a "natural" rights argument. I'm saying the anarchist proposed system of rights is that there is no "victimless crime".

And then who will encode it and enforce it? All rights come from the state, it is a guarentee by the government as to what you are permitted to do, and what you are protected from. Without the state, there can be no rights, if rights are to have any meaning.

[Sociobiology]

So police arresting someone for murder is justified.

By the courts.

Yes, yes it is, as it is in organized self-defense.

The courts define your rights incorrectly, as your rights include anything you can do that does not violate another's rights (the maximization of rights). I've never seen a court do this, but if it did, I would applaud it.

your society is just as fallible at defining rights as a court if not more so, sooooo... whats the benefit?

[Freethinking Anarchists]

No, it isn't metaphysical. I'm not pulling a "natural" rights argument. I'm saying the anarchist proposed system of rights is that there is no "victimless crime".

And then who will encode it and enforce it? All rights come from the state, it is a guarentee by the government as to what you are permitted to do, and what you are protected from. Without the state, there can be no rights.

Incorrect. Without government, there can be no rights. The rights are proposed by the voluntaryist philosophy: the initiation of force is the only crime, as it violates another who was committing a victimless act.

I'm say that when there IS enforcement, then there IS a state. The differences are in what policies it enforces.

That is simply not true. A state is constituted by a monopoly of the legitimate initiation of force and territory to enforce it and a somewhat-centralized power (which respect to decentralized states).

So, the enforcement is not the issue. The "crimes" within an anarchist community would be ones that inherently initiate force and harm others, because no victimless crime can exist, so any enforcement of law without a state would be nothing more than organized self-defense. A voluntary militia arresting a murderer is not initiating force, because the murderer initiated force by murdering whoever his unlucky victim was.

All enforcement in an anarchist society would be a response to the initiation of force. If a voluntary militia initiates force, the people would (and if they stick to the principles, which I feel they will, should) create a new militia that puts down the old, in the fashion of organized self-defense.

[Genivaria]

Of course they do, and that's a good thing.
States that don't have a monopoly on force are more aptly called 'failed states'.

This is the fundamental split. A monopoly on the initiation of force means the state can, and as it has shown, WILL, initiate force. Using force against a murder is not initiated force, as the murder initiated force. Using force against a tax evader, a drug user or a hippie commune is an initiation of force, as their crimes are victimless.

The state is not defending itself when it uses force against a murderer it is initiating force on a citizens behalf.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Yes, yes it is, as it is in organized self-defense.

The courts define your rights incorrectly, as your rights include anything you can do that does not violate another's rights (the maximization of rights). I've never seen a court do this, but if it did, I would applaud it.

your society is just as fallible at defining rights as a court if not more so, sooooo... whats the benefit?

This allows for the abandonment of the bullshit concept of a "victimless crime" and maximizes liberty.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

This is the fundamental split. A monopoly on the initiation of force means the state can, and as it has shown, WILL, initiate force. Using force against a murder is not initiated force, as the murder initiated force. Using force against a tax evader, a drug user or a hippie commune is an initiation of force, as their crimes are victimless.

The state is not defending itself when it uses force against a murderer it is initiating force on a citizens behalf.

Yes, and that is justified, just as a voluntary army or private defense company would in a Voluntary Society, on the behalf of the community/buyer, respectively.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Let's correct that:

Having a State=/= statism.

In fact, I rather like having a state, which has a military to protect me if our nation is ever invaded, or to arrest dangerous criminals with police officers.

Both of which are better trained then any minutemen militia would ever be.

No one is advocating for a minutemen militia, and can you prove that all anarchist militias would be untrained?

Of course, no you can't. This argument has been proposed to me now four times on this thread and I have made the same point every time: militia does not equate to untrained soldiers.

[Sociobiology]

Of course they do, and that's a good thing.
States that don't have a monopoly on force are more aptly called 'failed states'.

This is the fundamental split. A monopoly on the initiation of force means the state can, and as it has shown, WILL, initiate force.

Using force against a murder is not initiated force,

the murder sees his or her victim as an initiator of force. of course the problem is the victim or others in society may disagree, so we created a formal definition of force, called laws, to minimize confusion.
then we have people punish violators, if this group has specialists you have a state if it does not then you do not have a state but you do limit your population.

as the murder initiated force.

does he? whe decided who is to say they were not defending themselves under volunteerism?

Using force against a tax evader, a drug user or a hippie commune is an initiation of force, as their crimes are victimless.

[/quote]
actually a tax evader is stealing so that would be justified, but what makes you think these will not happen without a state, states did not invent prejudice, warfare, or group violence.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And then who will encode it and enforce it? All rights come from the state, it is a guarentee by the government as to what you are permitted to do, and what you are protected from. Without the state, there can be no rights.

Incorrect. Without government, there can be no rights. The rights are proposed by the voluntaryist philosophy: the initiation of force is the only crime, as it violates another who was committing a victimless act.

That is simply not true. A state is constituted by a monopoly of the legitimate initiation of force and territory to enforce it and a somewhat-centralized power (which respect to decentralized states).

So, the enforcement is not the issue. The "crimes" within an anarchist community would be ones that inherently initiate force and harm others, because no victimless crime can exist, so any enforcement of law without a state would be nothing more than organized self-defense. A voluntary militia arresting a murderer is not initiating force, because the murderer initiated force by murdering whoever his unlucky victim was.

All enforcement in an anarchist society would be a response to the initiation of force. If a voluntary militia initiates force, the people would (and if they stick to the principles, which I feel they will, should) create a new militia that puts down the old, in the fashion of organized self-defense.

Again, you misrepresent my point, rights are given by the state precisely because they have a "monopoly on force", thereby, they can enforce it. If there is no "monopoly of force" and, by and by, the state, there can be no "rights", because the state gives it validity with its strength. What you are proposing is simply violence and more violence, violence against "initiation of force" by a bunch of vigilantes, violence against those vigilantes if other vigilantes think they are out of line, etc., etc.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Yes, anarchism has governments. Statism has governments with a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Let's correct that:

Having a State=/= statism.

In fact, I rather like having a state, which has a military to protect me if our nation is ever invaded, or to arrest dangerous criminals with police officers.

The state also is used as a tool by groups to enforce prohibition of their pet peeves, which results in "victimless crimes" being punished.

No one is against military, police or law. We are against the state, and wish to provide these without a monopoly on the initiation of force.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Let's correct that:

Having a State=/= statism.

In fact, I rather like having a state, which has a military to protect me if our nation is ever invaded, or to arrest dangerous criminals with police officers.

The state also is used as a tool by groups to enforce prohibition of their pet peeves, which results in "victimless crimes" being punished.

No one is against military, police or law. We are against the state, and wish to provide these without a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Who is going to protect the law without a state? After all, their monopoly of force is the reason why they can enforce a law in the first place, otherwise it would dissolve into lawlessness.

[Sociobiology]

your society is just as fallible at defining rights as a court if not more so, sooooo... whats the benefit?

This allows for the abandonment of the bullshit concept of a "victimless crime"

how does it do so?
nothing in the description prevents it. If anything it makes it easier because people will differ on what constitutes a crime.

and maximizes liberty.

how, by making it dependent on your personal ability to enforce your perceived rights?

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Incorrect. Without government, there can be no rights. The rights are proposed by the voluntaryist philosophy: the initiation of force is the only crime, as it violates another who was committing a victimless act.

Again, you misrepresent my point, rights are given by the state precisely because they have a "monopoly on force", thereby, they can enforce it. If there is no "monopoly of force" and, by and by, the state, there can be no "rights", because the state gives it validity with its strength. What you are proposing is simply violence and more violence, violence against "initiation of force" by a bunch of vigilantes, violence against those vigilantes if other vigilantes think they are out of line, etc., etc.

The have a monopoly on the initiation of force. That means they can fire the first shot, or start the violence. The state can punish someone for committed a crime that has no initiated force. The initiation of force is the only crime in a voluntary society, so there is no "victimless crime" and all crimes harm another's person or property. The state can enforce prohibition on victimless acts, voluntary militias cannot.

[Sociobiology]

Let's correct that:

Having a State=/= statism.

In fact, I rather like having a state, which has a military to protect me if our nation is ever invaded, or to arrest dangerous criminals with police officers.

The state also is used as a tool by groups to enforce prohibition of their pet peeves, which results in "victimless crimes" being punished.

No one is against military, police or law. We are against the state, and wish to provide these without a monopoly on the initiation of force.

you seem to think they are two different things.
if they can use force, and others cannnot, then they have a monopoly on the initiation of force, since what constitutes force is subjective.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

The state also is used as a tool by groups to enforce prohibition of their pet peeves, which results in "victimless crimes" being punished.

No one is against military, police or law. We are against the state, and wish to provide these without a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Who is going to protect the law without a state? After all, their monopoly of force is the reason why they can enforce a law in the first place, otherwise it would dissolve into lawlessness.

A government can exist without a state.

They have a monopoly on the initiation of force.

A Logical Fallacy here and Here

[Freethinking Anarchists]

The state also is used as a tool by groups to enforce prohibition of their pet peeves, which results in "victimless crimes" being punished.

No one is against military, police or law. We are against the state, and wish to provide these without a monopoly on the initiation of force.

you seem to think they are two different things.
if they can use force, and others cannnot, then they have a monopoly on the initiation of force, since what constitutes force is subjective.

Because....they are. The voluntary militia does not initiate force, rather, they respond to an initiation of force. It is similar to a fire department putting out a fire.

In a voluntary society, what constitutes force in not subjective. It's been made pretty clear, and to deny it is simply denying the anarchist claims and not confronting them.