[ninurta]

No, what I said was:

first, ask them to stop polluting and be mindful of those who have to share the same resources (i.e. the ones they are polluting). If they don't........

second step, find everyone else who is fed up, and get them all to tell them to stop. If they still refuse......

third step, force them to stop polluting.

[Wolfman]

So, honor system enforced by an angry mob?

[Suska]

lol

you ppl are phunny

look, it depends on what you take as principle and legitimacy for authority. Anarchism and to some extent Libertarianism has at principle no tolerance for arbitrary authority - the whole "just because we say so" is what is refuted. So if you demonstrate a need there isn't any reason not to organize. The thing is; you organize for an explicit purpose and when that purpose is gone you don't have an institution that retains its power. You insist on proven purpose and performance and where purpose and performance are lacking you discharge the institution. There is no other authority but functionality. That's what having no rulers really means. You might make a case for organizers and speakers within an Anarchism, but these aren't permanent posts with golden parachutes and exclusive access to monied syndicates. See? Privledge is denied, function is embraced.

[canadiancapitalist]

An anarchist society (and of course I am speaking here, and always, of anarchy as conceptualized by Rothbard, the abolition of the state but the preservation of the general capitalist economic system) would be radically more efficient then a statist society (as we no longer have to use half of our resources to pay for spineless beaucrats to lord over us) and technology would advance at a MUCH more rapid clip (for this and a few other reasons, a complete reformation of the educational system, lack of laws inhibited technological development, etc). Technological development has been a panacea for pollution so far, and I suspect this will continue to be the case.

[Wolfman]

lack of laws inhibited technological development

[ninurta]

So, honor system enforced by an angry mob?

Sorry for the late reply, no not a honor system. I am not sure what you mean by that. But in getting someone to stop destructing the same resources and polluting the air you breath and the water your drink, using an angry mob can be a pretty influencial force if simply asking them a few times doesn't work. But they won't attack if they stop polluting, that is, if the people hadn't made them too angry prior for forgiveness.

What do you mean by an honor system though?

Its organized only temporary only to get the mob to make the people stop polluting, then it dissolves immediately after.

[Wolfman]

I am not sure what you mean by that

"here are the rules, don't break them" instead of "these are the rules, this is how hard we're going to punch you in the face if you break the rules". And what you described was basicly "we don't want you to this, please don't do it". That sounds like an honor system.

No, an Angry Mob is not a good form of Justice. "Street Justice is no Justice". Street Justice has a habit of picking up the wrong people (it's easy to frame people if you think ahead), or getting no one (making people think that no crime at all was committed, or hiding the evidence).

An orginized system run rationally is infinitly better then the Honor System of Street Justice.

[canadiancapitalist]

[ninurta]

"here are the rules, don't break them" instead of "these are the rules, this is how hard we're going to punch you in the face if you break the rules". And what you described was basicly "we don't want you to this, please don't do it". That sounds like an honor system.

I see what you mean, I thought you meant in organizing a mob by an honor system.

No, an Angry Mob is not a good form of Justice. "Street Justice is no Justice". Street Justice has a habit of picking up the wrong people (it's easy to frame people if you think ahead), or getting no one (making people think that no crime at all was committed, or hiding the evidence).

Didn't say I thought it was a good idea, I just simply stated that it could be used. I personally don't agree with the idea either, but it could work.

An orginized system run rationally is infinitly better then the Honor System of Street Justice.

And that is why a state is a good thing.

[Wolfman]

I thought I was arguing against an Anarchist.

[ninurta]

I thought I was arguing against an Anarchist.

Nope, just another libertarian talking on behalf of anarchists.

Sorry to disappoint you

[Wolfman]

Nope, just another libertarian talking on behalf of anarchists.

DAMN IT! you guys gotta warn me! I can hardly tell the difference between you two groups as it is!

[ninurta]

DAMN IT! you guys gotta warn me! I can hardly tell the difference between you two groups as it is!

well, some of us libertarians believe in having a state, some libertarians are anarchists. But libertarians generally believe that the government should be as little as possible and still work. there are other beliefs, but with regards to state/govt, we tend to be minimalists.

[Wolfman]

Ideologically speaking, I can rarely tell the difference between a Minimalist Libertarian, and an Anarchist. I've actually heard them use each others arguments!

[ninurta]

I've actually heard them use each others arguments!

becuase we are very similar in many ways.

[Phred]

Ideologically speaking, I can rarely tell the difference between a Minimalist Libertarian, and an Anarchist. I've actually heard them use each others arguments!

The difference is enormous and fundamental. "Minarchists" (i.e. Libertarians as understood by the American definition of the term) recognize the need for a government charged with assisting its employers (the citizens of the society in question) in defending themselves from human predators, be those predators domestic or foreign. To that end, Minarchists support a standing military and a justice system (police, courts, and prisons) funded by, impartial with, and available to all its citizens.

The reason you often see Anarchists and Minarchists using the same arguments is that neither believes the government should be involved in anything else. Anarchists, of course, also believe there is no need for a justice system or a standing military at all, but the point here is that both Anarchists and Minarchists say there is no need for governmental involvement in, say, education or health care or the prohibition of various drugs or gun ownership or.... *fill in a long list of hundreds of other things government involves itself in which it has no right to*

This is why - unless the topic is specifically cops, courts, or military - the positions of Minarchists and Anarchists (by this I mean actual Anarchists, not the Communists/Socialists choose to call themselves Anarchists) are so similar.






Phred

[Wolfman]

The difference is enormous and fundamental

While that may be true, I've yet to a Libertarian/Minarchist argument that couldn't be applied to argue for Anarchy. I've also seen different Libertarians/Minarchist argue against a government run police system, military, roads, or anything else Libertarians generally agree the Gov should be running.

[Phred]

While that may be true, I've yet to a Libertarian/Minarchist argument that couldn't be applied to argue for Anarchy.

WTF? Did you not read my post? Minarchists/Libertarians/Classical Liberals argue that there MUST be a government. They recognize government as essential to the existence of a civilized society, they merely point out that the areas of authority of that government must be severely restricted. Anarchists argue that theree must be no government. It is hard to produce a more one hundred an eighty degree opposition of fundamental philosophy than that.

I've also seen different Libertarians/Minarchist argue against a government run police system, military...

No, you haven't. You may have seen people arguing against those things and assumed they were Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberals, or they may have falsely presented themselves as such (as so many Communists and other Collectivist falsely represent themselves as Anarchists), but by definition someone who rejects the concept of cops, courts and military is not a Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal. The belief in the need for limited government is an essential precondition of Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal doctrine.




Phred

[Wolfman]

WTF? Did you not read my post? Minarchists/Libertarians/Classical Liberals argue that there MUST be a government

Sorry, mistype. I meant that more in reference to why there should be no government involvment out side of X (X representing whatever that Libertarian/Minarchist feels the Gov should be involved in).

No, you haven't. You may have seen people arguing against those things and assumed they were Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberals, or they may have falsely presented themselves as such

No, these are people who have the same basic line of thought as other Libertarians/Minarchist (and claim to be so), but added that the gov should not run the Police, Military, or roads (keep in mind, these people are on this site).

but by definition someone who rejects the concept of cops, courts and military is not a Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal.

Again, a misunderstanding has occured (my bad, I shouldn't type when exhasuted). One said the police/courts, ANOTHER said the roads, and a third said the Military. We're talking about three different people, not one.

[Phred]

No, these are people who have the same basic line of thought as other Libertarians/Minarchist (and claim to be so), but added that the gov should not run the Police, Military, or roads (keep in mind, these people are on this site).

That describes not Libertarians/Minarchists/Classical Liberals, that describes AnCaps (a sub-species of Anarchists). Again, an essential precondition for accurately calling oneself a Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal is that one recognizes the need for government tasked with dealing with human predators on behalf of the citizenry - the justice system (cops and courts) deals with domestic predators and the military handles foreign predators. Roads are a different matter. For some reason which escapes me, some people professing to be Libertarian think government should be in charge of building and maintaining roads in addition to defending the citizenry from predators, but that doesn't alter the fact that these same people also recognize the need for cops, courts, and military. Cops, courts and military are the irreducible minimum. If someone says government should not be in charge of cops or courts or military, then that person is not a Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal, no matter how loudly he protests that he is.

One said the police/courts...

If that one says government should not be in charge of the cops, that one is not a Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal. He is - at most - an AnCap.

...ANOTHER said the roads...

Well, this guy might be a Libertarian (in the sense of a member of the American Libertarian Party, for example). He's certainly not a Minarchist or a Classical Liberal (in the sense of the various Enlightenment political philosophers such as the American Founding Fathers), but it is true that some members of the American Libertarian Party hold the position that government should handle the building and maintenance of roads.

...and a third said the Military.

Again, by definition, this third person cannot be a Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal, even if he insists upon calling himself one.

We're talking about three different people, not one.

At least two of whom are quite clearly not Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal.

No, these are people who have the same basic line of thought...

But that's just it, they don't have the same "basic" line of thought. Can you not grasp the fundamental difference between a philosophy which states that government (albeit strictly limited government) is an essential component of a society and a philosophy which states that government is forbidden to society?

Your post indicates a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "basic".




Phred