Life of a Commoner in an anarchist society

[The Empire of Pretantia]

A reminder that the war in Iraq resulted in the removal of Hussein, and the US's aim was not to incite terror. This is all beside the fact that this doesn't make Anarchism any more right. After all, the only reason anarchist nations haven't committed warcrimes is because they don't exist.

Also, give me another source on that please.

Because there's no such thing as social contract.

Doesn't matter what the U.S. aimed to do, the death of 500,000 children is pretty terrifying if you're on the receiving end

I wonder why there are still terrorists.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Doesn't matter what the U.S. aimed to do, the death of 500,000 children is pretty terrifying if you're on the receiving end

I wonder why there are still terrorists.

Perhaps because we keep fighting an unwinnable war against them. It's a self-reinforcing cycle that only results in wealthier arms manufacturers and death.

[Lockean Georgeville]

It would have to derive it's authority from the approval of ALL citizens, which could potentially be achieved at a decentralized, directly-democratic level. But under our current system, the State cannot gain the approval of the entire populace. It just wont happen.

And why does the legitimacy matter? Does practicality not allow legitimacy? Can some citizens not be excluded?

In reality, legitimacy doesn't matter. I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the State is illegitimate, but I recognize that abolish of the State will probably never happen. Anarchy is most likely unachievable. Realistically, practicality does allow for legitimacy.

Force is not a legitimate reason. In the same way robbery is not a legitimate exchange.

Then what makes a legitimate society? Social coercion and violence is going to be omnipresent, anarchist or no.

A legitimate society is one without force. Something that will probably never be achieved.

[Estva]

In reality, legitimacy doesn't matter. I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the State is illegitimate, but I recognize that abolish of the State will probably never happen. Anarchy is most likely unachievable. Realistically, practicality does allow for legitimacy.

Very well.

A legitimate society is one without force. Something that will probably never be achieved.

Why is force any less legitimate than lack of force?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

And why does the legitimacy matter? Does practicality not allow legitimacy? Can some citizens not be excluded?

In reality, legitimacy doesn't matter. I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the State is illegitimate, but I recognize that abolish of the State will probably never happen. Anarchy is most likely unachievable. Realistically, practicality does allow for legitimacy.

Then what makes a legitimate society? Social coercion and violence is going to be omnipresent, anarchist or no.

A legitimate society is one without force. Something that will probably never be achieved.

But the laws that govern society are not legitimate without force - they become simple guidelines.

[Ripoll]

And why does the legitimacy matter? Does practicality not allow legitimacy? Can some citizens not be excluded?

In reality, legitimacy doesn't matter. I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the State is illegitimate, but I recognize that abolish of the State will probably never happen. Anarchy is most likely unachievable. Realistically, practicality does allow for legitimacy.

Then what makes a legitimate society? Social coercion and violence is going to be omnipresent, anarchist or no.

A legitimate society is one without force. Something that will probably never be achieved.

......then why are you an anarchist if you agree the whole damn thing will never happen, and we would probably be better off if the state wasn't abolished.

[Solaray]

Well what I meant was more that the state forms around the land. All citizens are part of the state, to some degree, all citizens own the land, to some degree. Members of the government have more ownership because they govern the state. Taxes are like rent, in the sense that if the government taxes without giving back it is theft. However, most governments compensate the taxed people with public services.

No, because with rent, the tenant has an explicitly agreed to contract with the landlord. Such agreement does not exist with the state.

If government has the right to tax people living on the land, than that would mean that they have ownership (since being an owner allows you to make the rules). I asked you "how did they acquire ownership?". You have not answered that homey.

PS: It doesn't matter what the thief/state does with the money, what is important is the means by which they acquired your money.

The government would have acquired ownership by force. Which is how many things are acquired. Owning anything requires force to protect it. The main difference is that in an anarchy, you are responsible for providing the force, and in a state, they do it for you via property laws and whatnot.

And it does matter what the money is used for. For someone to take money from you and uses it to throw you and your peers a party, is better than them using the money to buy themselves shit.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

In reality, legitimacy doesn't matter. I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the State is illegitimate, but I recognize that abolish of the State will probably never happen. Anarchy is most likely unachievable. Realistically, practicality does allow for legitimacy.



A legitimate society is one without force. Something that will probably never be achieved.

......then why are you an anarchist if you agree the whole damn thing will never happen, and we would probably be better off if the state wasn't abolished.

If people only worked towards things they believe will happen, society would be a pretty terrible & primitive place.

[Anarkhist Kyrylashka]

Well, Hopefully this whole debate is beginning to wind down. I've spent a good hours on this thread, from at least 4:00 to now, making it six hours. I'm gonna go and continue with my night. Happy debating to those still talking in here.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well, Hopefully this whole debate is beginning to wind down. I've spent a good hours on this thread, from at least 4:00 to now, making it six hours.

THE RIDE NEVER ENDS.

[Geilinor]

And why does the legitimacy matter? Does practicality not allow legitimacy? Can some citizens not be excluded?

In reality, legitimacy doesn't matter. I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the State is illegitimate, but I recognize that abolish of the State will probably never happen. Anarchy is most likely unachievable. Realistically, practicality does allow for legitimacy.

There are many states, not all of them equal. Talking about it as if there's only one state doesn't help.

[Lockean Georgeville]

A legitimate society is one without force. Something that will probably never be achieved.

Why is force any less legitimate than lack of force?

Because it violates the non-agression principle. The non-aggression principle is a necessary praxeological presupposition of any ethical discourse.

[Ripoll]

......then why are you an anarchist if you agree the whole damn thing will never happen, and we would probably be better off if the state wasn't abolished.

If people only worked towards things they believe will happen, society would be a pretty terrible & primitive place.

Except anarchism is utopian BS, and we would probably be worse off if it happened as I've stated before.

[Democratic Koyro]

If people only worked towards things they believe will happen, society would be a pretty terrible & primitive place.

Except anarchism is utopian BS, and we would probably be worse off if it happened as I've stated before.

Most people would be dead for a start off.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Why is force any less legitimate than lack of force?

Because it violates the non-agression principle. The non-aggression principle is a necessary praxeological presupposition of any ethical discourse.

Sometimes, aggression is the only way to solve a problem.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

If people only worked towards things they believe will happen, society would be a pretty terrible & primitive place.

Except anarchism is utopian BS, and we would probably be worse off if it happened as I've stated before.

And I agree, but that does not make "working towards things that will probably not happen" any less legitimate.

[Skeckoa]

Well, here. How does someone claim ownership? I say it is homesteading and trade (but that is for another thread).

The state claimed it, brought armies, and forced the people on that land into subjugation. Any argument saying that the state legit owns all the land will boil down to a "Might makes right" kind of argument. no, we have deffy not established that taxes are not theft.

"Taxation is theft"

Yes yes, you've thrown that melodramatic hyperbole around quite a lot.

It is not theft if you receive something in return, that is housing, public services, affordable healthcare, sanitary regulation, roads, education, and all this other exciting stuff!


A yes, the coercion argument, because I didn't ever agree even if I get all this in return it is theft, despite that not being what the definition of theft is I'll address this anyway, that's called citizenship

Being a citizen comes with certain rights and responsibilities. You have a right to protection and all Government services but also a responsibility to pay for these services, and support the structure every day people make up through taxation. You have a right to vote but a responsibility to accept the result even if your party does not win. Sure I never consented to being a citizen of Ireland, but then again I never consented to capitalism either. I never agreed to live in a society with either democracy or private property. I never agreed to elections being held every five years or the current distribution of property. Do we have to have a social revolution every time someone disagrees with the way things are? The fact is that there are lots of things we never agreed to, but have to live with. We have to live under some sort of political and economic system that will be to some extent arbitrary, but it simply isn't feasible to have everyone make up their own rules.

No matter what happens a similar system has to be implemented anyway, and again I still question what the point in any of this anarchism business is anyone as I stated before on this page

Which brings me to my final point, why the hell would you want to revert all the progress humanity has made to establish a similar but crappier system? Need I not remind you we are at the most peaceful point in World History since Humans have been a thing? The most economically prosperous? It's no coincidence our population is soaring when a few centuries ago it was stagnant for centuries at a time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuUW9i-mHs

First: It doesn't matter what the money was spent on, what matters is the means by which it is acquired (ignoring of course that public spending is relatively new phenomenon) Second: Citizenship starts as a one-way contract that you have to opt out of. Did Cubans explicitly agree to their citizenship? Did Irish? Did Americans? Yes, I'm sure some people would gladly agree if asked, but that is not everyone. As of right now, it is an opt-out kind of thing. Even if you did opt-out, if you continued to work in the United States, you would still have to pay taxes to the state. No, we do not have to have a revolution everytime someone disagrees with something, but we need a good long look in the mirror when we forcing people to participate in those things with which they do not agree.

[Lockean Georgeville]

In reality, legitimacy doesn't matter. I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the State is illegitimate, but I recognize that abolish of the State will probably never happen. Anarchy is most likely unachievable. Realistically, practicality does allow for legitimacy.



A legitimate society is one without force. Something that will probably never be achieved.

......then why are you an anarchist if you agree the whole damn thing will never happen, and we would probably be better off if the state wasn't abolished.

I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the state lacks legitimacy, but I don't think it will ever be abolished.

Practically, I am a minarchist.

[Estva]

Why is force any less legitimate than lack of force?

Because it violates the non-agression principle. The non-aggression principle is a necessary praxeological presupposition of any ethical discourse.

So then is it unethical to use force in order to implement an unpopular law that benefits the population as a whole?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

......then why are you an anarchist if you agree the whole damn thing will never happen, and we would probably be better off if the state wasn't abolished.

I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the state lacks legitimacy, but I don't think it will ever be abolished.

Practically, I am a minarchist.

from the minarchism wikipedia article: "Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts."
You are obviously not a minarchist, because the former two institutions necessitate violence - and you believe violence to be non-legitimate.

[Skeckoa]

The government would have acquired ownership by force. Which is how many things are acquired. Owning anything requires force to protect it. The main difference is that in an anarchy, you are responsible for providing the force, and in a state, they do it for you via property laws and whatnot.

And it does matter what the money is used for. For someone to take money from you and uses it to throw you and your peers a party, is better than them using the money to buy themselves shit.

There is a difference between the power and the right to do something. If I break into your home, I have the power to do harm to your possessions, but I have no right to do so. That is the state.

And no again, what the money is used for does not matter. Yes, it is preferable that I get some of my robbed money back in the form of gifts, but that still didn't make the robbery "not a robbery". I'll go to your home, take 40% of shit in your piggy bank, and buy you a cake (along with other shit for myself). Was my robbery wrong?

[Lockean Georgeville]

Because it violates the non-agression principle. The non-aggression principle is a necessary praxeological presupposition of any ethical discourse.

So then is it unethical to use force in order to implement an unpopular law that benefits the population as a whole?

Yes, it is. But sometimes practicality requires it.

[Skeckoa]

it exists in democratic states, no action in America is taken without representation of the people

Show me any contract that you signed that explicitly gave the state the power to take your earnings, decide the amount, and decide the means by which they are to do so, that you signed before becoming a citizen.

Also, yes, actions are taken by the American government that go contrary to what the people want.

[Ripoll]

No matter what happens a similar system has to be implemented anyway, and again I still question what the point in any of this anarchism business is anyone as I stated before on this page

First: It doesn't matter what the money was spent on, what matters is the means by which it is acquired (ignoring of course that public spending is relatively new phenomenon) Second: Citizenship starts as a one-way contract that you have to opt out of. Did Cubans explicitly agree to their citizenship? Did Irish? Did Americans? Yes, I'm sure some people would gladly agree if asked, but that is not everyone. As of right now, it is an opt-out kind of thing. Even if you did opt-out, if you continued to work in the United States, you would still have to pay taxes to the state. No, we do not have to have a revolution everytime someone disagrees with something, but we need a good long look in the mirror when we forcing people to participate in those things with which they do not agree.

one of your fellow libertarians even acknowledges that taxes are not theft

Taxation is not theft. It may resemble theft in important respects; it may be the case that some of the reasons that lead us to condemn theft will, if properly considered, lead us to condemn taxation; it may even be the case that taxation is as morally reprehensible as theft; nonetheless, and with apologies for the repetition, it is not theft.

The point is not semantic but rather phenomenological. The perceived reality of theft is notably distinct from that of taxation. When I return home from a libertarian scholars’ conference to find the lock on my door broken and my television set gone I am outraged. That which I expected to be secure from encroachment has been violated. The perpetrator of the theft has transgressed rules that both he and I recognize to be the de facto as well as de jure principles of cooperation that undergird a framework of civility from which all citizens can be expected to derive benefit. The moral ire I feel is, then, not some amorphous feeling that things are other than they ought to be. Rather, that animus is precisely localized: it is focused on this act by this individual. Moreover, I possess a justifiable confidence that my animus will be seconded by those among whom I live. What is primarily a violation of my rights is understood by them to be more than a private conflict of interest between me and the individual who coveted my television. Accordingly, I am able to avail myself of the formal apparatus of the legal system and the informal vindication afforded by a consensus among the members of the moral community that I have been violated and ought to be made whole. And if I am exceptionally lucky, this solidarity may even help me to recover the TV set.

In nearly all relevant respects the perceived context of taxation is significantly different. I look at my pay stub and observe that a large slab of my salary has been excised before I ever had the opportunity to fondle it. This is an annoyance, perhaps an intense one. But it is not focused on the particular extraction. Rather, its object is some or all of the tens of thousands of pages of the tax code, the political order within which the power to tax is lodged, and the constitutional foundations on which that political order is erected. I wish some or all of it were otherwise; that, though is the inverse of a highly specific grievance. Moreover, I cannot count on the solidarity of my fellow citizens. That is both a descriptive and a normative statement. If I have adopted the cooperationist rather than the rejectionist attitude toward the society in which I live, then I am thereby committed to acknowledging that although my fellow citizens’ views concerning the ethics of taxation are, as I see it, mistaken, the perspective from which they adopt those views is not so unreasonable or uncivil as to disqualify them from moral respect. I am entitled, perhaps even obligated, to attempt to persuade them to think otherwise. However, prior to the dawning of that bright dar in which the veils are lifted and freedom reigns, I shall, if I am not a fanatic, concede the legitimacy (not, of course, the optimality) of the overall moral framework within which taxation takes place. It is, therefore, not only misleading but also an exercise in borderline incivility to equate taxation with theft, for if it is then taken in its straightforward sense, that pronouncement denies the legitimacy of the social order and announces that I regard myself as authorized unilaterally to override its dictates as I would the depredations of a thief. It says to my neighbors that I regard them as, if not themselves thieves, then confederates or willing accomplices to thievery. Is it pusillanimous to suggest that declaring war, even cold war, against the other 99 percent of the population is imprudent? I would therefore caution libertarians to shelve the “Taxation is theft!” slogan despite its sonorous ring, and if they cannot bring themselves to do that, then at least to cultivate a twinkle in the eye when they haul it forth.

[Estva]

So then is it unethical to use force in order to implement an unpopular law that benefits the population as a whole?

Yes, it is. But sometimes practicality requires it.

So what is the point of this "philosophical anarchism" if realism will trump it every time?