Anarchism

[Sociobiology]

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.

which is subjective. thus a monopoly on force IS a monopoly on the initiation of force.

The state can punish someone for committed a crime that has no initiated force.

as can ANY society or individual.

The state can enforce prohibition on victimless acts, voluntary militias cannot.

why? What stops them?

[Shaggai]

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

Except that having a monopoly on force and/or the initiation thereof is beneficial, because without it it becomes far more difficult to deal with cooperation problems. The classic example is the Prisoner's Dilemma (which doesn't quite work the same way in reality, but there are plenty of similar problems that do work). Normally, self-interest leads both prisoners to defect, resulting in a mutually harmful outcome. However, if the mob boss threatens to kill any defectors, they won't defect and the outcome will be better for both.

[Sociobiology]

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.

but you have no mechanism to prevent them from initiating force, even if every single person in your society could agree upon what constitutes initiation of force, which is not going to happen.

In a voluntary society, what constitutes force in not subjective.

yes it is, the underlined alone makes it subjective. do you know what the difference between objective and subjective is?

It's been made pretty clear, and to deny it is simply denying the anarchist claims and not confronting them.

if the claim is false it is completely legitimate to deny accepting it.

[Liberaxia]

The have a monopoly on the initiation of force.

A government is not a monopoly, but if you're going to use Weber's conception, then at least get it correct:

'Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions
existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition
would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy,' in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is
certainly not the normal or the only means of the state—nobody says that—but force is a means specific to
the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the
most varied institutions—beginning with the sib—have known the use of physical force as quite normal.
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly
of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the
characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to
other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered
the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or
striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.

There is nothing about "initiation" in there. It does say "legitimate use of physical force" which is means, essentially, the law. Therefore, Weber's use of the word "monopoly" cannot be taken in its economic sense—the way most libertarians use it—but rather in the sense that there is a clearly established set of norms. Ancapistan would have such an established set of norms. If it didn't, then that means that there is dispute over what the legitimate norms which usually takes the form of a civil war.

[Sociobiology]

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.

validity has nothing to do with it, the state does not give it validity it gives it the backing of force so violating the right is minimized, the society gives validity.

[Liberaxia]

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.

validity has nothing to do with it, the state does not give it validity it gives it the backing of force so violating the right is minimized, the society gives validity.

What he says.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

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.

validity has nothing to do with it, the state does not give it validity it gives it the backing of force so violating the right is minimized, the society gives validity.

The Society does not give it validity, and there are a number of laws wherein society and the state disagrees upon, it is the states monopoly of force that gives their particular laws backing and therefore, validitiy.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

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.

Which is a good thing, because that is an excellent way to punish all crimes.

The state can punish someone for committed a crime that has no initiated force.

And this is a bad thing because?

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.

I can interpret your trampling on my lawn as a "initiation of force" upon the blades of grass that took me months of careful growing, and upon my person, in that you are trespassing upon my territory.

The state can enforce prohibition on victimless acts, voluntary militias cannot.

The state should be able to enforce prohibition on "victimless acts", because there "victimless acts" are still crimes.

[Sociobiology]

validity has nothing to do with it, the state does not give it validity it gives it the backing of force so violating the right is minimized, the society gives validity.

The Society does not give it validity, and there are a number of laws wherein society and the state disagrees upon, it is the states monopoly of force that gives their particular laws backing and therefore, validitiy.

so to you force = validity?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The Society does not give it validity, and there are a number of laws wherein society and the state disagrees upon, it is the states monopoly of force that gives their particular laws backing and therefore, validitiy.

so to you force = validity?

In a sense, yes, because it enforces the state's opinion over society's by means of its power. Therefore, what society thinks ("Doing so and so is a no-no.") is mostly irrelevant when the state says it is legal.

[Sociobiology]

so to you force = validity?

In a sense, yes, because it enforces the state's opinion over society's by means of its power. Therefore, what society thinks ("Doing so and so is a no-no.") is mostly irrelevant when the state says it is legal.

oh...so you have no idea how states function, now everything makes sense.
I mean I could see this as an argument against despotism but it hardly applies to representative democracies, at least not any more than it applies to all societies.

to be clear, if the people in the society do not care about a law enough to express that opinion in the voting booth then they are giving tacit permission to keep the law.

[Casita]

A government can exist without a state.

They have a monopoly on the initiation of force.

A Logical Fallacy here and Here

Except that having a monopoly on force and/or the initiation thereof is beneficial, because without it it becomes far more difficult to deal with cooperation problems. The classic example is the Prisoner's Dilemma (which doesn't quite work the same way in reality, but there are plenty of similar problems that do work). Normally, self-interest leads both prisoners to defect, resulting in a mutually harmful outcome. However, if the mob boss threatens to kill any defectors, they won't defect and the outcome will be better for both.

I'm not sure a mob boss metaphor helps your argument. It usually doesn't work out for anyone.

[Sociobiology]

Except that having a monopoly on force and/or the initiation thereof is beneficial, because without it it becomes far more difficult to deal with cooperation problems. The classic example is the Prisoner's Dilemma (which doesn't quite work the same way in reality, but there are plenty of similar problems that do work). Normally, self-interest leads both prisoners to defect, resulting in a mutually harmful outcome. However, if the mob boss threatens to kill any defectors, they won't defect and the outcome will be better for both.

I'm not sure a mob boss metaphor helps your argument. It usually doesn't work out for anyone.

see the dilemma here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[Liberaxia]

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.

This is like saying "I'm not against private property, I just don't think people should be allowed to own anything.". It's a distinction without a difference.

[Arkolon]

If there's one thing in this thread that makes me cringe, it's Genivaria's posts in the last four pages.

I feel like half of the actual argument is defining what anarchism is. Anarchism does not have a Weberian state, specifically a state that has a coercive monopoly on violence. Anarchism can, and often does, have a governing body. Absolute equality without a hierarchy is impossible, unless we're talking about small tribes. A government (governing body) needn't be a state. The rest of your arguments are distortions of definitions, misunderstandings, and sensationalist hyperboles.

[Zottistan]

If there's one thing in this thread that makes me cringe, it's Genivaria's posts in the last four pages.

I feel like half of the actual argument is defining what anarchism is. Anarchism does not have a Weberian state, specifically a state that has a coercive monopoly on violence. Anarchism can, and often does, have a governing body. Absolute equality without a hierarchy is impossible, unless we're talking about small tribes. A government (governing body) needn't be a state. The rest of your arguments are distortions of definitions, misunderstandings, and sensationalist hyperboles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

I don't see anything about coercion, and I've never heard before that a state was characterized by the coercive monopoly of violence.

[Socialist Tera]

Anarchism fails because any capitalist can easily set up anew state while capitalists governments still exist.

[Liberaxia]

If there's one thing in this thread that makes me cringe, it's Genivaria's posts in the last four pages.

I feel like half of the actual argument is defining what anarchism is. Anarchism does not have a Weberian state, specifically a state that has a coercive monopoly on violence. Anarchism can, and often does, have a governing body. Absolute equality without a hierarchy is impossible, unless we're talking about small tribes. A government (governing body) needn't be a state. The rest of your arguments are distortions of definitions, misunderstandings, and sensationalist hyperboles.

You absolutely do not understand Weber's conception of states. Your first mistake is using "monopoly" in an economic sense. Your second is getting caught up on "coercive versus voluntary". You guys are the ones employing definition twisting.

[The Flood]

Anarchism is more absurd then claiming one's self to be a 400 foot tall purple platypus bear with pink horns and silver wings.

[Sociobiology]

If there's one thing in this thread that makes me cringe, it's Genivaria's posts in the last four pages.

I feel like half of the actual argument is defining what anarchism is. Anarchism does not have a Weberian state, specifically a state that has a coercive monopoly on violence. Anarchism can, and often does, have a governing body. Absolute equality without a hierarchy is impossible, unless we're talking about small tribes. A government (governing body) needn't be a state. The rest of your arguments are distortions of definitions, misunderstandings, and sensationalist hyperboles.

sounds like no true scotsman combines with moving the goal post, what exactly is the difference between a monopoly on force and a coercive monopoly on force.

[Arkolon]

If there's one thing in this thread that makes me cringe, it's Genivaria's posts in the last four pages.

I feel like half of the actual argument is defining what anarchism is. Anarchism does not have a Weberian state, specifically a state that has a coercive monopoly on violence. Anarchism can, and often does, have a governing body. Absolute equality without a hierarchy is impossible, unless we're talking about small tribes. A government (governing body) needn't be a state. The rest of your arguments are distortions of definitions, misunderstandings, and sensationalist hyperboles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

I don't see anything about coercion, and I've never heard before that a state was characterized by the coercive monopoly of violence.

My point seems to have been misunderstood. Anarchists are traditionally opposed to an institution with a monopoly on force, but others, namely myself and the voluntary statist stripe of voluntaryist pseudo-anarchism (even I don't pretend to be an anarchist), are opposed to any institution with a coercive monopoly on force. You should also search Wikipedia for what a coercive monopoly is, and you should notice that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence.

[Arkolon]

If there's one thing in this thread that makes me cringe, it's Genivaria's posts in the last four pages.

I feel like half of the actual argument is defining what anarchism is. Anarchism does not have a Weberian state, specifically a state that has a coercive monopoly on violence. Anarchism can, and often does, have a governing body. Absolute equality without a hierarchy is impossible, unless we're talking about small tribes. A government (governing body) needn't be a state. The rest of your arguments are distortions of definitions, misunderstandings, and sensationalist hyperboles.

sounds like no true scotsman combines with moving the goal post, what exactly is the difference between a monopoly on force and a coercive monopoly on force.

here

[Arkolon]

Anarchism is more absurd then claiming one's self to be a 400 foot tall purple platypus bear with pink horns and silver wings.

... says the one who believes in the Christian interventionist God.

[Arkolon]

How would you abolish property, then, if not just nationalise it?

And "openly" means that I admit it's false, which I don't.

snip

Although that sounds like you mean very well with your syndicalism working within a capitalist system through voluntary means (I would personally love to see the manufacturing sector in the capitalist Occident collectivise resources in an anarcho-syndicalist manner), but where in this idea is private property abolished? It is just collectivised or its ownership divided among workers, but the private property remains private property despite this.

[The Scientific States]

Anarchism is more absurd then claiming one's self to be a 400 foot tall purple platypus bear with pink horns and silver wings.

I also find anarchism to be a silly ideology, but saying that is not a good way to explain why anarchism is a bad thing.