Deacon wrote:Anarchy is not the absence of a state but the absence of law, period, every man for himself in every way, complete and utter freedom at the cost of complete and utter self reliance.
Anarchism is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups". There is nothing in there that is anti-law (law is not government authority
), nor demanding complete self reliance.
If you get to pick and choose what law to follow, then there is no law.
I suppose the lex mercatoria
doesn't exist then, as you can choose not to follow it (and be ostracized as a result)? International trade is a myth?
You ignore the fact that, while intra-law disputes would likely be sorted out by the single agency, those agencies would have agreements with others for inter-law disputes to facilitate arbitration there as well. Your arguments might be a little more convincing if you would read any of the material I have cited, so that your arguments would not already be rejected.
And does your neighbor pay for Police A while you pay for Police B?
If that is what you chose to do as individuals.
Who do you turn to when the two end up joining in cahoots? When they merge, and they're the only game in town and squash any attempted upstarts?
If you do not approve of a merger, you turn to the ability to stop paying them and utterly ignore their dictates. Without a large sum of revenue, they cannot "squash attempted upstarts". Even dictators are upheld by public opinion, and there is no perceived legitimacy factor involved here.
Read the article again. The courts and law system was not democratically selected, but market selected. Individuals picked for themselves, not through a democracy.
No, there was a community court which had a procedure where both sides picked half the jurors. Meting justice was not a business transaction.
Still not democratic, any more than a private arbitration is now, where both sides agree to the terms. Because it was, in effect, a private arbitration in private courts.
Smartphones are a VERY RECENT invention, are not universal,
A basic cell phone can do the same job, and those are near universal - even in Somalia:
Somali telecoms expert Ahmed Farah says the first mobile telephone mast went up in Somalia in 1994, and now someone can make a mobile call from anywhere in the country.
There are nine networks to choose from and they offer services from texting to mobile internet access.
and should not be you only way to contact emergency services.
Unless you are not using a phone
, but something like smoke signals or some bullshit, numbers can be remembered in the phone's memory, if nowhere else.
And what happens when the "private" switchboard routes my call to a company I don't like or that does a bad job or whatever else? I am still stuck with their bill? Why would they not gouge me?
Why is private in quotes? And, once again, your strongest objection is basically "it could be just like now" - to which I say, if that is the case, then we have literally nothing to lose.
Of course, this objection ignores the fact that said switchboard/redirection company would also be a competitive marketplace entity. If they do not redirect your call to the agency you provide them with, there is no reason you would have to pay, and every reason that you would not, just as if a restaurant gives you the wrong dish and you leave in protest. If one company fails to provide efficient and correct emergency connections, it would not last long in any market for that service. Some other company picks a different three digit emergency number, and you call them if necessary instead, and spread the word to others to do the same.
You aren't allowed on other people's property, as they require an agreement that you will not harm them, and if you do you have agreed to procedures to sort it out.
I have no interest in working out contracts with every person I leave near or interact with in small ways on a daily basis. Your vision should be renamed to attorey-capitalism.
You agree to such contracts every time you go on to another's property now. Every market transaction is also an implicit contract. There is no need for explicit, highly detailed contracts and attorneys.
Basically, if you don't want to pay, and your neighbor does, your neighbor is paying, in part, to keep you off his property.
Interesting. So even though we have no dispute, he will hire a private security force to come and beat me with sticks if I put a foot over onto his property line?
If you go on his property against his will, you are no longer in a situation of "no dispute". You are violating his property. And he has every right to demand that people that visit his property have agreed
I thought he was hiring private security guards that have no authority to intervene unless I decide to grant it because they're not the police, unless they're forcing me to accept their authority at gunpoint.
They have no authority over you on your own property.
Oh, and if you don't pay for some crime protection, then good luck if someone commits a crime against you - it will be like if your house burns down and you forgot to get fire insurance.
Wait, I thought we were talking about preventing
crime, not allowing crime to run rampant and just filing lots of insurance claims after the fact.
Crime prevention is incentivized by these insurance companies because they don't want to pay out claims. Further, private security can be obtained directly as well. But the core of the stateless justice system is that insurers indemnify victims of crime if the criminal is not caught and brought to justice. Thus, they seek to both prevent crime (to avoid the paperwork and the loss of money) and to catch criminals quickly (to, again, avoid payouts).
You are the most extremely optimistic anarchist I've ever even heard of
Not really. I don't claim it would be perfect. Only that it would start from a significantly more moral position (institutionalized theft and other aggressive violence against peaceful individuals is non-existent), allow for significantly more alternative choices and recourse, and that the worst case
is not only unlikely, but simply a reversion to what currently exists
individuals themselves who are struggling on a daily basis
They struggle now because of state rules that take their money to waste on foreign wars, uneconomic development, and endlessly inflating bureaucracy. Because of the state's inflation of the money supply, reducing the value of what little can be saved or earned in a fixed income. The state causes so much suffering
, that to claim that getting rid of it will cause people to start from a lower position is a little absurd.
unless you're broke by this point, which means you're SOL
This is a fallacy. The market provides goods and services cheaper and better than any government can. This same argument is used by socialists standing in bread lines: "In the West, I hear the government doesn't even provide bread
Hell, the NFL won't even put real refs back in the game after substantial criticism from the media, media that reaches people due to standards and controls put in place by government.
The media does not reach people "due to standards and controls put in place by government". If anything, the media itself is corrupt because of its reliance on government. (Do you not see the political blinders on all the news networks?) It is the Internet - kept free by market forces - that provides actual news to people, from which they make their decisions.
And the NFL referee situation is deeply manipulated by state rules, mainly rules regarding unions and the artificial NFL monopoly through grants of subsidies for stadiums and the like. Even were it not, no one is criticizing the NFL on grounds that the "replacement refs" are doing anything violent or aggressive against the consumer, or even substantially hurting the enjoyment of the game minus a few bad calls. If people don't like the refs actions enough to actually stop watching, the fallout would be quick.
What do you do if the cops are dirty now? Honestly, that happens all the time, and nothing can really be done about it.
That's absolutely no true, that nothing can be done about it or that it happens "all the time" for that matter. What happens exactly depends on at what level the corruption is taking place.
It happens at all levels. It is implicit in the nature of compulsory monopoly to provide an inferior, and often harmful, service. This is the same reason that the Soviet Union couldn't provide a matching number of left and right shoes.
The cops can murder someone in the wrong house ("a mistake") without consequence. They can use money they forcibly extract from the public to violently arrest and cage peaceful people smoking weed or selling raw milk.
Are you saying a cop can go into the house of someone he wants to kill, shoot them dead, and then say in his report, "Oops!" without consequence? Really?
Yes, as long as he has some "legitimate" action that he was supposedly attempting to do, and it was "just a mistake". Or perhaps he shoots a bunch of bystanders to a shooting at the Empire State Building because he doesn't know how to aim his gun properly. This sort of thing happens all the time, often with "paid administrative leave" until the thing blows over in the 24 hour news cycle.
They can't arrest people, peaceful or otherwise, who are smoking weed or selling raw milk if we don't make those things illegal.
It matters whether you are a member of the "we", or the "people". Let me ask, if "we" made owning a truck illegal, would you follow that law? If "we" made owning a gun illegal, and the Court invalidated the Second Amendment's application (as it has done with so many others), would you follow that
law? At what point would the state have gone too far? Because it will
, sooner or later, cross that line. Such is the nature of an organization that is given such power as to decide even what the limits of its power are.
I'm not sure what you mean by "violently arrest" unless you're referring to some sort of beating of someone who was peacefully resisting, sitting still while being beaten mercilessly, which I agree happens continually, to the point where I saw several such incidents just this morning on my way to work.
The state system is fundamentally "dirty", simply because it is the epitome of a protection racket.
No, it's not, because the state is not starting out by threatening to beat you and burn your building to the ground unless you pay up. Taxes and the mafia are close enough to honestly confuse only at a 50,000 foot view.
The state is threatening, constantly, to take my property even if I do pay up
. It threatens to lock me in a cage if I don't, and to beat or even kill me if I resist this kidnapping. No, they aren't threatening to burn my building down specifically - they don't have to when they can just say they want to start a “comprehensive redevelopment plan", and give my property to someone else to build whatever they want on it.
The specific threats are irrelevant - the system of threatening people who don't pay a unilaterally determined fee for what is called protection is a protection racket