Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Gum, heres the problem with your argument that the government can't run their schools for less; that already happens.

The American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, just a few miles from my neck of the wood, runs off half the funding of other public schools in the state. 97% of the students are poor, and 99% are minority students; the two groups least likely to succeed in a schooling environment. Yet by halving funding, giving away all their computer equipment, and implementing a military-school like system, using nothing but the most basic method's, and by firing teachers with a vengeance, it's the highest ranked public school in the state, and one of the best in the entire country.

At 11/24/09 03:53 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: To embrace anarchy is to embrace the idea that government serves no ultimate purpose, and that their actions are useless to society;

Not necessarily. I'd consider myself an anarchist in heart if not in mind, but I think that government both serves a purpose and that it can do useful things to society; it's just that the risks outweigh the good things, and that history has taught us that government doesn't do those things that actually are good.

that we need no police officers to arrest criminals or keep peace, that we don't need a military to ward of foreign invasion, that we don't need roads or firefighters.

That isn't true at all. Anarchists believe that those things can be fixed without government. At least roads and firefighters, as the view of police and military tend to vary from anarchist to anarchist. I, myself, believe we should have some kind of police, but I think the current police system is inherently flawed.

So what, the police officers would be hired, organized as a for-profit capitalist enterprise? If I get mugged, and I want the police to arrest the mugger, I pay them to do so? Yeah, that won't ever lead to abuse.

"you can't arrest me, you don't have any proof!"

"We don't need proof we're THE POLICE omg lol"

At 11/24/09 05:49 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: So what, the police officers would be hired, organized as a for-profit capitalist enterprise? If I get mugged, and I want the police to arrest the mugger, I pay them to do so? Yeah, that won't ever lead to abuse.

No. I don't believe in private property. Rather, in my ideal society, everyone would spend some time of their life as a police, much how military works in a lot of countries. Instead of being it 24/7 for some year and then never again though, I'd support a system where everyone had some years where they served as police some days of the week.
But then again, in my ideal society that would be the way with most jobs, or kinds of jobs. While not everyone would be a lumberjack and not everyone a nurse, I'd support a system in which everyone worked some time with physical jobs (like lumberjack or whatever), some time intellectually/creatively (research, art and the like), and some time social (like nurse or w/e). Preferably these would be mixed up not only over the years, but all the time so that you work a few weeks with this and a few weeks with that.
But there are many different designs as how the law and such would work in an anarchistic society, and it would be up to the citizens of the society. The above was just my utopia, kind of. As said, I'm an anarchist in heart, though I don't believe humanity is ready for it right now.

At 11/24/09 04:06 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Gum, heres the problem with your argument that the government can't run their schools for less; that already happens.

It was SmilezRoyale's argument that they couldn't or didn't on average! Do you disagree with him on that point.

The American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, just a few miles from my neck of the wood, runs off half the funding of other public schools in the state. 97% of the students are poor, and 99% are minority students; the two groups least likely to succeed in a schooling environment. Yet by halving funding, giving away all their computer equipment, and implementing a military-school like system, using nothing but the most basic method's, and by firing teachers with a vengeance, it's the highest ranked public school in the state, and one of the best in the entire country.

Which places the blame on the school boards we all elect. Right?

I mean, my point is that the only reason public schools are more expensive is because they've been legislated that way, and while that's a government action, a government could also legislate it the other way, as we see in the example you just put forward. I'm not in disagreement with you, I don't think.

And my other point is that direct expenses are not indicative of a quality of education.

Sajberhippien

I'd support a system

Then you support a government and you aren't an anarchist. Systems are governments and vice versa. Police have rules and a system for doing business, that's a government.

At 11/24/09 08:16 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

I'd support a system

Then you support a government and you aren't an anarchist. Systems are governments and vice versa. Police have rules and a system for doing business, that's a government.

No, systems aren't necessarily governments, as long as all participants are voluntary. For example, when I go camping with my scout group, we have a system that the ones who doesn't cook do the dishes. This isn't a government.

At 11/24/09 09:05 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: For example, when I go camping with my scout group, we have a system that the ones who doesn't cook do the dishes. This isn't a government.

Yes it is. You have a leader in your group that told you to have this system an there are consequences (exile) for not doing the dishes. If the group decided not to do the dishes what would happen? If there's a consequence then you are trying to enforce a law and you have a micro government.

In the case of police its even more defined because you have to have some set of laws or rules for police to even be able to do anything.

At 11/24/09 09:37 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/24/09 09:05 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: For example, when I go camping with my scout group, we have a system that the ones who doesn't cook do the dishes. This isn't a government.

Yes it is. You have a leader in your group that told you to have this system an there are consequences (exile) for not doing the dishes.

No, we don't have a leader, we're all on equal basis. We've all agreed upon it.

If the group decided not to do the dishes what would happen? If there's a consequence then you are trying to enforce a law and you have a micro government.

If the whole group agreed not to do the dishes, well, nothing would happen except the dishes wouldn't be done. If a single person refused, well, next time we probably wouldn't cook for that guy. That's not government.
Government would be if only a few of us set the rules, and we punished the others if they didn't follow them.

In the case of police its even more defined because you have to have some set of laws or rules for police to even be able to do anything.

Well, yeah, but as said, as long as everyone agrees on the rules beforehand there's no governing going on. As long as the objective of the police is nothing except defending people from coercion, there's no governing going on.

Do you think any contract you agree to is a form of government? If you do, your view of what constitutes a government is far from the generally accepted, and you are using the word in a whole different meaning than it's commonly used. If you do, sure, an anarchistic society would have governments, and governments would be fairly common amongst animals too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_l aw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

At 11/24/09 11:28 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: No, we don't have a leader, we're all on equal basis. We've all agreed upon it.

So it was a Democracy then? :o

If the whole group agreed not to do the dishes, well, nothing would happen except the dishes wouldn't be done. If a single person refused, well, next time we probably wouldn't cook for that guy. That's not government.

Sure it is. The punishment is exile. You don't get food next time. You have a law and you have a consequence. A government is just a bunch of those codified and enforced in different ways. You can't escape it. People and government go hand in hand.

Government would be if only a few of us set the rules, and we punished the others if they didn't follow them.

Not necessarily. Democracy IS government.

You don't like totalitarianism and variants thereof. You actually do like government.

Well, yeah, but as said, as long as everyone agrees on the rules beforehand there's no governing going on. As long as the objective of the police is nothing except defending people from coercion, there's no governing going on.

Yes there is. Your police force has to deal with those who are doing the coercing. And what happens when someone coerces? You have to punish them. How do you do that? etc.

Do you think any contract you agree to is a form of government? If you do, your view of what constitutes a government is far from the generally accepted, and you are using the word in a whole different meaning than it's commonly used. If you do, sure, an anarchistic society would have governments, and governments would be fairly common amongst animals too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_l aw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

"A Government is the body within a community, political entity or organization which has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_demo cracy

Your government simply wouldn't create any other institutions outside of a police force & laws. However, having done so, other things must rise up. What happens to offenders? Who is responsible for enforcement? How do you determine whether enforcement was proper or not.

At 11/24/09 11:40 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/24/09 11:28 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: No, we don't have a leader, we're all on equal basis. We've all agreed upon it.

So it was a Democracy then? :o

Yes, a consensus-based democracy.

If the whole group agreed not to do the dishes, well, nothing would happen except the dishes wouldn't be done. If a single person refused, well, next time we probably wouldn't cook for that guy. That's not government.

Sure it is. The punishment is exile. You don't get food next time. You have a law and you have a consequence. A government is just a bunch of those codified and enforced in different ways. You can't escape it. People and government go hand in hand.

It's not just people then. If my cat starts fighting with another cat, that cat will fight back. There is an implied law, and a consequence. Does that mean that the neighbourhood cats have a government? Nah, you're just making the whole word worthless by including everything in it.

At 11/24/09 01:14 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: It's not just people then. If my cat starts fighting with another cat, that cat will fight back. There is an implied law, and a consequence. Does that mean that the neighbourhood cats have a government? Nah, you're just making the whole word worthless by including everything in it.

It does mean that if the Cats have a police force.

At 11/24/09 01:24 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/24/09 01:14 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: It's not just people then. If my cat starts fighting with another cat, that cat will fight back. There is an implied law, and a consequence. Does that mean that the neighbourhood cats have a government? Nah, you're just making the whole word worthless by including everything in it.

It does mean that if the Cats have a police force.

You still claimed that me and my friends had a government in our agreement, despite not having a police force. And you didn't specify police, you said that as long as there are laws and consequences there's government. And there are implied laws among the cats, and consequences.

At 11/24/09 01:37 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 11/24/09 01:24 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/24/09 01:14 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: It's not just people then. If my cat starts fighting with another cat, that cat will fight back. There is an implied law, and a consequence. Does that mean that the neighbourhood cats have a government? Nah, you're just making the whole word worthless by including everything in it.

It does mean that if the Cats have a police force.

You still claimed that me and my friends had a government in our agreement, despite not having a police force. And you didn't specify police, you said that as long as there are laws and consequences there's government. And there are implied laws among the cats, and consequences.

Cats don't agree as a group to enforce laws. A group of guys agreeing to cook if the other group cleans up in a consistent fashion is different. You have as a group, democratically decided to act a certain way and when anyone dissents the consequence is that they are no longer a part of the group and can't benefit anymore. How is that not government? Just because you haven't anointed yourselves as police officers doesn't mean you aren't effectively police officers.

At 11/24/09 02:15 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Cats don't agree as a group to enforce laws. A group of guys agreeing to cook if the other group cleans up in a consistent fashion is different. You have as a group, democratically decided to act a certain way and when anyone dissents the consequence is that they are no longer a part of the group and can't benefit anymore. How is that not government? Just because you haven't anointed yourselves as police officers doesn't mean you aren't effectively police officers.

Fair enough, that is a difference I can agree with. Still, do you propose that any kind of agreement that would have some kind of consequence if one part didn't uphold his part is a government?

At 11/24/09 05:49 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: So what, the police officers would be hired, organized as a for-profit capitalist enterprise? If I get mugged, and I want the police to arrest the mugger, I pay them to do so? Yeah, that won't ever lead to abuse.

Something like this, in theory, could happen with any service or any form of insurance. (My guess is that a free market protection agency would operate in insurance) or for any service for that matter. The only difference is that it's easier to imagine something bad happening in a case where a service was never provided for voluntarily. If the government was in the business of making pencils throughout most of history, if i advocated privatization of pencils you would be incredulous to the practicality of my proposal.

You could purchase insurance against X, and find that the insurance agency refuses to pay you.

And by your perception of reality, voluntarily funded insurance agencies of any kind could not operate honestly, the only solution is to establish Involuntarily funded agencies in which people are forced into when they are born.

And somehow, miraculously, we are to assume that these agencies are going to be more honest in their practices... Because... Why? They don't opperate for profit?

But is not an election founded on the assumption that politicians will act responsibly in their own self-interest? If politicians want to remain in office, they behave as the public demands of them? If a politician had no intention of running a second term would he not do anything in his power within the scope of legality to enrich himself and his political allies?

At 11/24/09 02:51 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Fair enough, that is a difference I can agree with. Still, do you propose that any kind of agreement that would have some kind of consequence if one part didn't uphold his part is a government?

I should clarify that the reason I'm making this point is that humans naturally gravitate towards governing themselves. Simple acts of government, like making contracts or laws are inherent in human interaction and eventually give rise to governments. You can't take the government out of a human. Its not possible.

At 11/24/09 03:41 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/24/09 02:51 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Fair enough, that is a difference I can agree with. Still, do you propose that any kind of agreement that would have some kind of consequence if one part didn't uphold his part is a government?

I should clarify that the reason I'm making this point is that humans naturally gravitate towards governing themselves. Simple acts of government, like making contracts or laws are inherent in human interaction and eventually give rise to governments. You can't take the government out of a human. Its not possible.

So, by using an extremely wide definition of government, you've made the word more or less worthless. Congratulations! -.-

At 11/24/09 05:38 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: So, by using an extremely wide definition of government, you've made the word more or less worthless. Congratulations! -.-

I don't believe I made it wider at all. Again, I think the thing you really don't like is a dictatorship because you seem fine with democracy.

At 11/24/09 06:03 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/24/09 05:38 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: So, by using an extremely wide definition of government, you've made the word more or less worthless. Congratulations! -.-

I don't believe I made it wider at all. Again, I think the thing you really don't like is a dictatorship because you seem fine with democracy.

What modern 'Democracies' Do is a very far from what individuals do contractually.

In a certain sense i can agree with you that there is a tendency for people to organize themselves in accordance with their preferences, there is also a tendency to defer to those of greater 'wisdom' for things such as establishing precedent rules and dispute resolution. But if people veiwed government the same way they veiwed the contracts and arrangements they made with regular individuals and companies on a daily basis they would realize one exploitative and dangerous their relation to the state really is.

You have these elections where thousands and sometimes millions of people who all too often care nothing about politics, or know virtually nothing about it, vote for individuals who, if those individuals get 51% percent of the vote, are given license to do a wide variety of what would otherwise be considered anti-social activities.

Democracy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c-Sge8Hw k0

I'm a Libertarian. I just believe that our government should have minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries.

Does that mean I'm an anarchist?

real libertarians ARE anarchists