Michael,
For my own edification, what would this non-coercive organization be? Any examples? If we dispense with "democracy", we replace it with what? Any examples?
Marcy
AA is a democratically run, non-coercive organization.
Oh, I thought the discussion referred to democracy, or lack of it, as referring to a country, not as referring to a private voluntary organization; so I was asking for examples of countries -- past or present.
Marcy
Marcy,
Are you familiar with the wonderful book edited by Ed Sringham, Anarchy and the Law? Many such societies are detailed in the book.
The Art of Not Being Governed by James C. Scott and Society Against the State by Pierre Clastres offer further historical examples.
Warm regards, Michael
Oh, I thought the discussion referred to democracy, or lack of it, as referring to a country, not as referring to a private voluntary organization; so I was asking for examples of countries -- past or present.
Marcy
This begs the question, "Why do we subscribe to an involuntary condition?"
I would propose that it is the same reason we subscribed to witch-hunts. Name it whatever you want, I don't need to prove that it's there.
As in witch hunts, the solution is to stop doing it.
Thank you for the reference, Michael. I was just hoping for one or two quick examples of the size and diversity of, say, the U. S. or Italy.
Marcy
Marcy,
None that I know of.
BTW, it's Stringham, not Sringham, as I originally miswrote.
Warm regards, Michael
Thank you for the reference, Michael. I was just hoping for one or two quick examples of the size and diversity of, say, the U. S. or Italy.
Marcy
The thirteen states were originally relatively free of federal coercion. And I would suspect some states wee relatively free of coercion. The special arrangements for slaves would come back to haunt them.
Hong Kong?
Colonial Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were anarchic.
Warm regards, Michael
Hong Kong?
Michael,
Funny how a condition of not being ruled has been given a name with a bad connotation. The choices have always been one thuggery or another. The thugs make sure there are no other choices on the menu.
I always ask those who demand government to explain why I need a third party with a gun in our relationship. Do they really think they are so bad-ass that I need somebody to protect me from them?
As it turns out, that is not the case. They are not themselves bad-ass enough, to take something from me without government and they also want me to help pay the thugs who do it for them. Otherwise there would be anarchy, as if anarchy is somehow a problem. Jeeze!! It has taken years for me to recover from the abuse, enough to see how sick these people are.
John
John,
I disagree that anti-anarchs are "sick." Most are simply misinformed and misled. They don't see that when you give the State the power to do good, it will also use it to do evil.
Michael
Michael,
Funny how a condition of not being ruled has been given a name with a bad connotation. The choices have always been one thuggery or another. The thugs make sure there are no other choices on the menu.
I always ask those who demand government to explain why I need a third party with a gun in our relationship. Do they really think they are so bad-ass that I need somebody to protect me from them?
As it turns out, that is not the case. They are not themselves bad-ass enough, to take something from me without government and they also want me to help pay the thugs who do it for them. Otherwise there would be anarchy, as if anarchy is somehow a problem. Jeeze!! It has taken years for me to recover from the abuse, enough to see how sick these people are.
John
While rule of government generally prevails *within* nations, the entire world exists in a sort of state of anarchy at the global level. Of course there's the United Nations, but as a governing authority it's really no stronger and probably weaker than the U.S. national government was under the Articles of Confederation. Commerce, scientific cooperation, cultural issues, etc., are all essentially left to be worked out by the governments of the various nation-states, along with corporations, NGOs, and other groups and individuals, without any real international binding authority. This is why the seasteading movement perceives an opening to escape the authority of existing government by colonizing the open ocean.
Obviously the anarchic condition of international affairs hasn't eliminated the problem of statism in the world, and thus it's easy to conclude that global anarchy isn't doing us any good, but I suspect that's only because we (fortunately) haven't seen the alternative of a real global government.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I'm not so charitable. Sure they could be misinformed but the misinformation serves their interests over mine, with violent coercion. In the same way slave owners were misinformed. In both cases each embraces a system over the objection of another. In both cases there is justification for their use of force to obtain benefit at the expense of others.
"Misinformed" doesn't quite cut it unless there is deep pathology.
John,
In order for me to understand your thinking, let's examine the extreme case of slave owners in the U.S. in 1800.
Are you maintaining owning slaves was evidence they were "sick" and had "deep pathology?"
Warm regards, Michael
I'm not so charitable. Sure they could be misinformed but the misinformation serves their interests over mine, with violent coercion. In the same way slave owners were misinformed. In both cases each embraces a system over the objection of another. In both cases there is justification for their use of force to obtain benefit at the expense of others.
"Misinformed" doesn't quite cut it unless there is deep pathology.
Yes. Same with men who believe they have the right to beat their wives.
This would mean George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were "sick" and had "deep pathology"?
Warm regards, Michael
Yes. Same with men who believe they have the right to beat their wives.
No Both of them would have had things differently, having inherited a condition they tried their best to end.
I'm not clear about what you're maintaining.
Are you saying slave owners are sick with deep pathology unless they inherited their slaves?
Patrick Henry did not inherit his slaves. Was he therefore sick with deep pathology?
Warmly, Michael
No Both of them would have had things differently, having inherited a condition they tried their best to end.