Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Discuss H&R posts and other Reason articles here.
User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2823
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Jasper » 10 Sep 2018, 10:07

Shem wrote:
07 Sep 2018, 23:36
How is that different than countries? Presumably on Wolf land, you're living by Wolf laws, just like if you're living on US land, you're living on US laws. And the US doesn't assert any control over Canada, any more than the Wolfs assert control over the Rivers. You're basically arguing that tiny city-states are the key to enduring liberty, when 1500 years of Italian history would suggest pretty much exactly the opposite.
Harry Lime wrote:You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
"i'd like to move toward not combusting except on special occasions like arbor day." - dhex

User avatar
JD
Posts: 10250
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JD » 10 Sep 2018, 13:08

Shem wrote:
07 Sep 2018, 23:36
How is that different than countries? Presumably on Wolf land, you're living by Wolf laws...
I think your question reveals some interesting assumptions, actually. Asserting exclusive control over a geographical area is what states do; if a group doesn't assert control over a geographical area, they're rather by definition not a state. The fact that your mind immediately jumps to "Wolf land" shows how deeply you tend to think in terms of states.
"Millennials are lazy. They'd rather have avocado toast than cave in a man's skull with a tire iron!" -FFF

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7123
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Shem » 10 Sep 2018, 15:20

JD wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 13:08
Shem wrote:
07 Sep 2018, 23:36
How is that different than countries? Presumably on Wolf land, you're living by Wolf laws...
I think your question reveals some interesting assumptions, actually. Asserting exclusive control over a geographical area is what states do; if a group doesn't assert control over a geographical area, they're rather by definition not a state. The fact that your mind immediately jumps to "Wolf land" shows how deeply you tend to think in terms of states.
Is it that I'm making assumptions, or is it that you're eliding important aspects of ownership? Ownership only works if a person or group are asserting control over a resource. If they don't control it, control will be taken by another actor. Starting with the land on which they live. I'm the absence of a larger authority, every individual or group is essentially asserting control over the land on which they live. They are, in effect, a microstate. Subject to all the other pressures across time as their larger brethren. It's why anarchocapitalism is not stable long-term; you're just making every man a state unto himself, rather than doing away with the state in any substantive way.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 10 Sep 2018, 15:32

Team Shem. Further - a rule set of governing one party is meaningless really. Shemland doesn’t specify property in the same way Jasonia does. Who gets to raid the other guys fridge? Rules have to apply to coherent sets.

User avatar
JD
Posts: 10250
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JD » 10 Sep 2018, 18:01

Shem wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 15:20
Is it that I'm making assumptions, or is it that you're eliding important aspects of ownership? Ownership only works if a person or group are asserting control over a resource. If they don't control it, control will be taken by another actor. Starting with the land on which they live. I'm the absence of a larger authority, every individual or group is essentially asserting control over the land on which they live. They are, in effect, a microstate. Subject to all the other pressures across time as their larger brethren. It's why anarchocapitalism is not stable long-term; you're just making every man a state unto himself, rather than doing away with the state in any substantive way.
I feel like you're conflating all land ownership with being a state in a way that is not really what anyone* means when they talk about the state, though. If ownership of land = being a state, then a) anarchy is very literally a logical impossibility, unless you think anarchy must mean no land ownership, and b) does that make every current land owner a state?

* with the possible exception of some left-anarchists who think everyone should be free to gambol across the plains or something
"Millennials are lazy. They'd rather have avocado toast than cave in a man's skull with a tire iron!" -FFF

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12214
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Sep 2018, 18:18

JD wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 13:08
Shem wrote:
07 Sep 2018, 23:36
How is that different than countries? Presumably on Wolf land, you're living by Wolf laws...
I think your question reveals some interesting assumptions, actually. Asserting exclusive control over a geographical area is what states do; if a group doesn't assert control over a geographical area, they're rather by definition not a state. The fact that your mind immediately jumps to "Wolf land" shows how deeply you tend to think in terms of states.
Except states aren't the only things to claim territory. Unless you're just acknowledging that organizations not deemed "states" that claim territory and do governmental things, like certain criminal organizations from the mafia to the yazuka, are, ultimately, states. Of course, then we quickly wander into calling things that aren't Westphalian states "states". A warlord claims territory and enforces laws? Not generally considered a sovereign state in international law, but there's damn well a government that can commit violence upon you.

Now, I'm personally fine with some sloppiness with the use of "the state" so long as we're all clear about talking about governments. It's short and concise, yadda yadda.

But when people we get into left- or right-anarchist woo about how the dominant coercive agency will be totes different from "a state", I roll my eyes hard. I do that because who actually gives a flying fuck about whether the oppressive assholes backed by guys with guns fully fit the definition of a Westphalian state?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3645
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Painboy » 13 Sep 2018, 12:50

Well if the state is little more than a gentleman's agreement and you could leave the state at any time is it really a state?

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12214
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Sep 2018, 13:32

Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 12:50
Well if the state is little more than a gentleman's agreement and you could leave the state at any time is it really a state?
"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3645
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Painboy » 13 Sep 2018, 14:16

Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 13:32
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 12:50
Well if the state is little more than a gentleman's agreement and you could leave the state at any time is it really a state?
"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?
Well they're talking about a physical location. You have to actually physically move yourself and your stuff out of the geographical area.

I was thinking more that it was declaring something along the lines of "I no longer acknowledge the laws of this state and now follow these new laws instead" and then just staying where you are.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12214
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Sep 2018, 14:47

Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:16
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 13:32
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 12:50
Well if the state is little more than a gentleman's agreement and you could leave the state at any time is it really a state?
"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?
Well they're talking about a physical location. You have to actually physically move yourself and your stuff out of the geographical area.

I was thinking more that it was declaring something along the lines of "I no longer acknowledge the laws of this state and now follow these new laws instead" and then just staying where you are.
Again, people do that, now, even to imaginary states free of gold fringes.

How respectful of that will a "totally not a state" government be, especially when they annoy, harass, or attack someone they govern? Who's going to enforce that respect in a manner that looks any different from one state conflicting with another?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3645
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Painboy » 13 Sep 2018, 15:01

Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:47
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:16
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 13:32
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 12:50
Well if the state is little more than a gentleman's agreement and you could leave the state at any time is it really a state?
"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?
Well they're talking about a physical location. You have to actually physically move yourself and your stuff out of the geographical area.

I was thinking more that it was declaring something along the lines of "I no longer acknowledge the laws of this state and now follow these new laws instead" and then just staying where you are.
Again, people do that, now, even to imaginary states free of gold fringes.

How respectful of that will a "totally not a state" government be, especially when they annoy, harass, or attack someone they govern? Who's going to enforce that respect in a manner that looks any different from one state conflicting with another?
Well I see it maybe as a person changing their security system or insurance carrier in a sense. "I'm no longer under Group A's protection and laws I'm under Group B's." Those groups, if so desired, can then negotiate with each other about any friction between the two.

Obviously that starts sounding like two states interacting with each other but it would be much more fluid and wouldn't have the coercive power of an actual state. Anarchy can have self-organizing groups, they just can't be coercive to their members.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12214
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Sep 2018, 15:12

Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 15:01
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:47
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:16
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 13:32
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 12:50
Well if the state is little more than a gentleman's agreement and you could leave the state at any time is it really a state?
"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?
Well they're talking about a physical location. You have to actually physically move yourself and your stuff out of the geographical area.

I was thinking more that it was declaring something along the lines of "I no longer acknowledge the laws of this state and now follow these new laws instead" and then just staying where you are.
Again, people do that, now, even to imaginary states free of gold fringes.

How respectful of that will a "totally not a state" government be, especially when they annoy, harass, or attack someone they govern? Who's going to enforce that respect in a manner that looks any different from one state conflicting with another?
Well I see it maybe as a person changing their security system or insurance carrier in a sense. "I'm no longer under Group A's protection and laws I'm under Group B's." Those groups, if so desired, can then negotiate with each other about any friction between the two.

Obviously that starts sounding like two states interacting with each other but it would be much more fluid and wouldn't have the coercive power of an actual state. Anarchy can have self-organizing groups, they just can't be coercive to their members.
So if a non-member steals your stuff or shoots you in the face, what is the non-coercive thing your not-a-state is going to do about it?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 13 Sep 2018, 16:40

Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3645
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Painboy » 13 Sep 2018, 16:58

Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 15:12
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 15:01
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:47
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:16
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 13:32
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 12:50
Well if the state is little more than a gentleman's agreement and you could leave the state at any time is it really a state?
"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?
Well they're talking about a physical location. You have to actually physically move yourself and your stuff out of the geographical area.

I was thinking more that it was declaring something along the lines of "I no longer acknowledge the laws of this state and now follow these new laws instead" and then just staying where you are.
Again, people do that, now, even to imaginary states free of gold fringes.

How respectful of that will a "totally not a state" government be, especially when they annoy, harass, or attack someone they govern? Who's going to enforce that respect in a manner that looks any different from one state conflicting with another?
Well I see it maybe as a person changing their security system or insurance carrier in a sense. "I'm no longer under Group A's protection and laws I'm under Group B's." Those groups, if so desired, can then negotiate with each other about any friction between the two.

Obviously that starts sounding like two states interacting with each other but it would be much more fluid and wouldn't have the coercive power of an actual state. Anarchy can have self-organizing groups, they just can't be coercive to their members.
So if a non-member steals your stuff or shoots you in the face, what is the non-coercive thing your not-a-state is going to do about it?
Well first the victim's group would advocate everyone, including those outside it, to voluntarily sanction the perpetrator in some way (like denying goods and services).

Then they might seek justice and recompense for the crime. Let's say the non-member is in Group A, Group B (representing the victim) could negotiate with Group A to "lift" their protection of the perpetrator with the agreement of an acceptable punishment to the criminal (or if there was some doubt to the guilt of the person in question an investigation and trial).

If we want to go the super non-coercive route the guilty party would agree to the decided punishment or be sanctioned and exiled from any interaction from either group. They could stay on their own property but if they step on anyone else's property they are trespassing and can be dealt with accordingly. Being that it's likely they are surrounded by other people's property they likely have the choice to submit to punishment or starve to death.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17135
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Hugh Akston » 13 Sep 2018, 17:01

JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:40
Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.
Here in America we call that a "legal system".
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12214
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Sep 2018, 17:03

Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:58
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 15:12
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 15:01
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:47
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:16
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 13:32

"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?
Well they're talking about a physical location. You have to actually physically move yourself and your stuff out of the geographical area.

I was thinking more that it was declaring something along the lines of "I no longer acknowledge the laws of this state and now follow these new laws instead" and then just staying where you are.
Again, people do that, now, even to imaginary states free of gold fringes.

How respectful of that will a "totally not a state" government be, especially when they annoy, harass, or attack someone they govern? Who's going to enforce that respect in a manner that looks any different from one state conflicting with another?
Well I see it maybe as a person changing their security system or insurance carrier in a sense. "I'm no longer under Group A's protection and laws I'm under Group B's." Those groups, if so desired, can then negotiate with each other about any friction between the two.

Obviously that starts sounding like two states interacting with each other but it would be much more fluid and wouldn't have the coercive power of an actual state. Anarchy can have self-organizing groups, they just can't be coercive to their members.
So if a non-member steals your stuff or shoots you in the face, what is the non-coercive thing your not-a-state is going to do about it?
Well first the victim's group would advocate everyone, including those outside it, to voluntarily sanction the perpetrator in some way (like denying goods and services).

Then they might seek justice and recompense for the crime. Let's say the non-member is in Group A, Group B (representing the victim) could negotiate with Group A to "lift" their protection of the perpetrator with the agreement of an acceptable punishment to the criminal (or if there was some doubt to the guilt of the person in question an investigation and trial).

If we want to go the super non-coercive route the guilty party would agree to the decided punishment or be sanctioned and exiled from any interaction from either group. They could stay on their own property but if they step on anyone else's property they are trespassing and can be dealt with accordingly. Being that it's likely they are surrounded by other people's property they likely have the choice to submit to punishment or starve to death.
Wait, wait, wait. You have multiple totally-not-states, but any one or two is going to be able to dictate this exile to all the perpetrator's neighbors, even if they belong to many other totally-not-states. How?

Further, what if the perpetrator isn't a member of totally-not-a-state? They're just fair game to the totally-not-a-state or anyone within it? Is everyone not in a totally-not-a-state fair game to be victimized by their members?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12214
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Sep 2018, 17:04

And moreover, do the totally-not-states protect their members anywhere in the world?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24228
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Warren » 13 Sep 2018, 17:07

Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 17:01
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:40
Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.
Here in America we call that a "legal system".
You need a government for one of those.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12214
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Sep 2018, 17:14

Warren wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 17:07
Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 17:01
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:40
Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.
Here in America we call that a "legal system".
You need a government for one of those.
Private arbitrators exist.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 13 Sep 2018, 18:34

Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:40
Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.
Here in America we call that a "legal system".
You don’t escape the problem.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17135
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Hugh Akston » 13 Sep 2018, 19:00

JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 18:34
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:40
Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.
Here in America we call that a "legal system".
You don’t escape the problem.
True, but in my defense "Failure to map out to the micron a system that is supposed to be determined by the needs and consent of people involved in it makes that system unworkable unlike the very workable extant system of feeding people who can't afford lawyers face first into the grinding gears of the legal-industrial complex" is a big problem to escape.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12214
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Sep 2018, 19:13

Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 19:00
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 18:34
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:40
Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.
Here in America we call that a "legal system".
You don’t escape the problem.
True, but in my defense "Failure to map out to the micron a system that is supposed to be determined by the needs and consent of people involved in it makes that system unworkable unlike the very workable extant system of feeding people who can't afford lawyers face first into the grinding gears of the legal-industrial complex" is a big problem to escape.
No, the problem is that you don't escape many of the reasons a judicial system exists just by saying "Whee, no government!"
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7123
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Shem » 13 Sep 2018, 21:53

Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:58
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 15:12
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 15:01
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:47
Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 14:16
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 13:32

"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?
Well they're talking about a physical location. You have to actually physically move yourself and your stuff out of the geographical area.

I was thinking more that it was declaring something along the lines of "I no longer acknowledge the laws of this state and now follow these new laws instead" and then just staying where you are.
Again, people do that, now, even to imaginary states free of gold fringes.

How respectful of that will a "totally not a state" government be, especially when they annoy, harass, or attack someone they govern? Who's going to enforce that respect in a manner that looks any different from one state conflicting with another?
Well I see it maybe as a person changing their security system or insurance carrier in a sense. "I'm no longer under Group A's protection and laws I'm under Group B's." Those groups, if so desired, can then negotiate with each other about any friction between the two.

Obviously that starts sounding like two states interacting with each other but it would be much more fluid and wouldn't have the coercive power of an actual state. Anarchy can have self-organizing groups, they just can't be coercive to their members.
So if a non-member steals your stuff or shoots you in the face, what is the non-coercive thing your not-a-state is going to do about it?
Well first the victim's group would advocate everyone, including those outside it, to voluntarily sanction the perpetrator in some way (like denying goods and services).

Then they might seek justice and recompense for the crime. Let's say the non-member is in Group A, Group B (representing the victim) could negotiate with Group A to "lift" their protection of the perpetrator with the agreement of an acceptable punishment to the criminal (or if there was some doubt to the guilt of the person in question an investigation and trial).

If we want to go the super non-coercive route the guilty party would agree to the decided punishment or be sanctioned and exiled from any interaction from either group. They could stay on their own property but if they step on anyone else's property they are trespassing and can be dealt with accordingly. Being that it's likely they are surrounded by other people's property they likely have the choice to submit to punishment or starve to death.
So, you're going to hit then with economic sanctions, which is more or less exactly what current states do to other states that transgress international norms? And this is in no way a system of microstates, but is an entirely different thing?

Also, so, it's less coercive because you don't have to pick up and move to join a different state. So, what if I'm renting an apartment, and my landlord joins The Church of the Holy Smoke, and wants me to join too. Since he is the owner of the land, and there is no law above him, what option do I have here? Other than living under his law, or moving? You say we made a contract that he wouldn't, but who exactly is going to make that something other than a piece of paper with squiggles on it?
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 13 Sep 2018, 22:06

Eric the .5b wrote:
Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 19:00
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 18:34
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:40
Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.
Here in America we call that a "legal system".
You don’t escape the problem.
True, but in my defense "Failure to map out to the micron a system that is supposed to be determined by the needs and consent of people involved in it makes that system unworkable unlike the very workable extant system of feeding people who can't afford lawyers face first into the grinding gears of the legal-industrial complex" is a big problem to escape.
No, the problem is that you don't escape many of the reasons a judicial system exists just by saying "Whee, no government!"
Yes this. All the features are there or they aren’t and you have no coherent rules regimes.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3645
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Painboy » 13 Sep 2018, 23:08

Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 17:03
Wait, wait, wait. You have multiple totally-not-states, but any one or two is going to be able to dictate this exile to all the perpetrator's neighbors, even if they belong to many other totally-not-states. How?
It would be similar to when counties and states have policies in place to deal with jurisdiction issues. You could do it through individual action but I believe most people would join groups not just for protection but so they wouldn't have to deal with stuff like this directly. Also things like this aren't something you would start from scratch every time. There would be traditions and customs that would evolve over time that would help handle these situations.
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 17:03
Further, what if the perpetrator isn't a member of totally-not-a-state? They're just fair game to the totally-not-a-state or anyone within it? Is everyone not in a totally-not-a-state fair game to be victimized by their members?
Again if you were going with the non-coercive approach it really wouldn't be much different than if they belonged to another group. You just wouldn't have to ask permission from another group. Just go straight to sanction and exile if they refuse to submit to an agreed upon punishment.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest