Rational Mysticism?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

If a mugger attacks you in a dark alley, and you successfully fight him off with your fists, would you call that "defending yourself" or "creating a protection racket"?

Do you even know what a protection racket is?

From Wikipedia:



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

Oh, so now you want to get all precise with definitions. So, can we first agree that a state with a constitutional government and a protection racket are different things?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

I've seen this all before. People can't attack the idea of anarchy without deliberately attempting to confuse the subject or conflate distinct concepts.

He knows what he is doing.

You do this all the time. You consistenly claim the state is no different than the mafia. But now you want to make distinctions when it suits you. I'm just arguing on your terms.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Oh, so now you want to get all precise with definitions. So, can we first agree that a state with a constitutional government and a protection racket are different things?

What's different about it, exactly?

If the crime bosses of the local Sicilian Mafia sit down and draw up a "Constitution" that says they are allowed to rob you and they all sign it, does that mean their protection racket all of a sudden becomes a legitimate government? If they allow their victims to vote for the Mafia henchmen who will preside over the administration of the protection racket, does the protection racket all of a sudden become a legitimate, democratically-elected government?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You do this all the time. You consistenly claim the state is no different than the mafia. But now you want to make distinctions when it suits you. I'm just arguing on your terms.

That's because the State and Mafia are functionally the same. The only differences are, the State is a legalized version of the Mafia whle the Mafia doesn't pretend to be legitimate like the State does.

[wgbgator]

If you recognize the necessity for force to secure rights, then I really can't see how you are "functionally" different from a statist.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You consistenly claim the state is no different than the mafia.

I think the question C&G seeks the answer for is: why must a private group of individuals with a mutual agreement to help each other protect their land necessarily be considered mafiaesque?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If you recognize the necessity for force to secure rights, then I really can't see how you are "functionally" different from a statist.

The statist would require a protection services (regardless of who is paying for it); the anarchist would operate on voluntary participation.

I think the short version of this is that fewer people involved in a government serving fewer people leads to a lower chance of corruption.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I think the question C&G seeks the answer for is: why must a private group of individuals with a mutual agreement to help each other protect their land necessarily be considered mafiaesque?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Mutual agreements are fine. That sounds nice. I just wonder what happens when someone renegs, breaks it or otherwise violates it. Its one thing to agree on something, enforcement of ongoing cooperation is usually where the problem lies. You're getting very close to what the state does, on a basic level. And since he's called the state a protection racket, that's why I used his prefered term.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If you recognize the necessity for force to secure rights, then I really can't see how you are "functionally" different from a statist.

That's easy. I don't have to violate the non-aggression principle to secure my rights, a statist does.

Functionally speaking, the difference is enormous.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

That's easy. I don't have to violate the non-aggression principle to secure my rights, a statist does.

Functionally speaking, the difference is enormous.

I don't think you understand what securing rights means. It doesnt mean just saying you that have them, and waiting to be attacked.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Mutual agreements are fine. That sounds nice. I just wonder what happens when someone renegs, breaks it or otherwise violates it. Its one thing to agree on something, enforcement of ongoing cooperation is usually where the problem lies. You're getting very close to what the state does, on a basic level.

OK, so let's assume the voluntary version of society doesn't work and you create a government to enforce contracts.

What happens when the government becomes the victim of regulatory capture and control of that government - and the immense forces at its disposal - falls into the hands of the same sort of people who break and violate contracts in a voluntary system? Now what?

Which outcome is worse?

[Minister_of_Information]

Anarchic systems only function when everyone knows everyone, because otherwise there is no accountability.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I don't think you understand what securing rights means. It doesnt mean just saying you that have them, and waiting to be attacked.

Sure it does. If a mugger attacks me in a dark alley and I successfully defend myself, then I have secured and protected my rights.

Security doesn't necessarily mean you have to create an involuntary extortion/protection racket.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Anarchic systems only function when everyone knows everyone, because otherwise there is no accountability.

There's no accountability in government either. Take a look at our own government, for example. Our government officials are protected by "qualified immunity", making them above the law in many aspects. Not only that, but if the government commits a crime and gets caught, they don't pay for it with their own money, they simply steal it from the taxpayers and then award it back to them as "damages".

Sure, you can vote out one set of political puppets and replace them with another, but you're not really holding anyone accountable. The system will march on just the same.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Sure it does. If a mugger attacks me in a dark alley and I successfully defend myself, then I have secured and protected my rights.

Security doesn't necessarily mean you have to create an involuntary extortion/protection racket.

I also think talk of rights outside a social context is idle, as without society force is the only method of arbitration. Rights that are only a euphemism for force have no meaning apart from that force. "Rights" itself as a term implies the persuasion of others to support a claim.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

There's no accountability in government either. Take a look at our own government, for example. Our government officials are protected by "qualified immunity", making them above the law in many aspects. Not only that, but if the government commits a crime and gets caught, they don't pay for it with their own money, they simply steal it from the taxpayers and then award it back to them as "damages".

Sure, you can vote out one set of political puppets and replace them with another, but you're not really holding anyone accountable. The system will march on just the same.

Yet government officials can and are held accountable all the time. See the Ray Nagin thread.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I also think talk of rights outside a social context is idle, as without society force is the only method of arbitration. Rights that are only a euphemism for force have no meaning apart from that force. "Rights" itself as a term implies the persuasion of others to support a claim.

You don't have to create a legalized Mafia protection racket to have a society.

Also, there are other avenues of persuasion than violent force.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

You don't have to create a legalized Mafia protection racket to have a society.

Also, there are other avenues of persuasion than violent force.

Yes of course, that was my point. "Rights" mean that there is concord about what "rights" are and that they ought to be respected, sufficient that I am able to resort to reason rather than force when asserting them, and that social pressure is usually sufficient for enforcement (though one can posit cases of collaborative force being applied, even anarchically, in furtherance of some claim or other). Unfortunately this can only be accomplished anarchically if all of the actors are known to one another and so are informed enough to evaluate the claims made, and if force is used it becomes complicated by the social need for revenge.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Yet government officials can and are held accountable all the time. See the Ray Nagin thread.

Sure, low-level government officials and non-insiders are sometimes sacrificed to keep the illusion of government accountability alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean all government officials can and will be held accountable.

Why do you think our government shields itself behind "qualified immunity"? Because they wish to limit accountability, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

In anarchy, there would be no such thing as the farcical legal concept of "qualified immunity". Nobody would be above the law. Under government, not so much.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Anarchic systems only function when everyone knows everyone, because otherwise there is no accountability.

Yep. And even then, there seems to be a need to invent laws.