Ville et anarki ha fungert i Norge?

[Politrikks]

I see so if my neighbor owns a prison, I can pay him to imprison people I don't like and I can pay another contractor to capture those that I think deserve to be there

 

Might be pretty hard to capture the top people in one of the private militias since theyhavetheir own army

 

Well, as long as you do not inprison innocent people, i will not use the treat of violence against you.

[Politrikks]

Where I grew up, African Americans could not live, grow up or goto school, so generous was the white society. I played in former slave quarters where torture and murder was commonplace, so helpful was society. Even today many white southerners yearn for the good old days before the government stepped in to end the killing, torture and slavery of millions of Americans with dark skin

 

Yea, there is no dark side to human nature and if only government would not have ended it

 

You managed to answer without answering my question. Please answer, thank you.

[Politrikks]

An anarchy would have eliminated slavery

 

Actually, it was the political market(demand for politics with less oppression) that led to a change in the laws of society. The moral change was the first to occur. Only then did the politicians dare to change the laws they made.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Actually, it was the political market(demand for politics with less oppression) that led to a change in the laws of society. The moral change was the first to occur. Only then did the politicians dare to change the laws they made.

 

There was not really a change in morality, most people in the north thought it was immoral as did many in the south, what changed was whether the federal government should tell a state to change it.

 

The larger point is that without majority rule, the system would not have changed. In an anarchy, slavery would likely still exist and the dark side of humanity would run unabated

[Skatteflyktning]

Yes, the word illegal is irrelevant when compliance is voluntary.

Indeed, that is why compliance would be forced

[Skatteflyktning]

There was not really a change in morality, most people in the north thought it was immoral as did many in the south, what changed was whether the federal government should tell a state to change it.

That was the immediate cause, apart from the Civil War in itself. What caused the Federal Goverment to make this change? Consider that a mere 100-200 years before nobody even voiced any objection to the practice of slavery, it was widely accepted, even by the slaves themselves.

 

The larger point is that without majority rule, the system would not have changed. In an anarchy, slavery would likely still exist and the dark side of humanity would run unabated

In todays democracy slavery still persists, however its name has changed into "Draft" (or "taxation"), and it is still widely accepted even by the slaves themselves. I know, because I was a slave to the State for some time.

[jjkoggan]

 

Indeed, that is why compliance would be forced

 

Coercion in an anarchy?

[Skatteflyktning]

Coercion in an anarchy?

Not coercion, selfdefense.

[jjkoggan]

 

Not coercion, selfdefense.

 

And if self defense is insufficient because the perpetrator is much more powerful?

[Skatteflyktning]

And if self defense is insufficient because the perpetrator is much more powerful?

 

Then you might need to seek help from someone more powerful than the perpetrator

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Then you might need to seek help from someone more powerful than the perpetrator

 

And if nobody wants to defend you ?

[Skatteflyktning]

And if nobody wants to defend you ?

The powerful person is likely pretty rich, otherwise he would not be "stronger", and I have a valid claim against this person. Enforcing the claim on my behalf makes for a valuable business proposition.

[Gjest Slettet+9871234]

Når ble dette et engelskspråklig forum? Trådstarter har norsk som morsmål.

Endret 20. mars 2013 av Slettet+9871234

[Ståle Nordlie]

You never replied to my earlier post on law in anarchist society. I suggest you check out the links I provided. (They're in English, if that was your excuse for ignoring it.)

 

And if nobody wants to defend you ?

What would you be willing to pay not to be a slave?

 

Do you think your labor would be more or less valuable if you were a slave?

[jjkoggan]

You never replied to my earlier post on law in anarchist society. I suggest you check out the links I provided. (They're in English, if that was your excuse for ignoring it.)

Maybe when I retire and have more time.

 

 

What would you be willing to pay not to be a slave?

 

Do you think your labor would be more or less valuable if you were a slave?

 

The answer to these questions are contingent on other conditions. What is your point?

[jjkoggan]

The powerful person is likely pretty rich, otherwise he would not be "stronger", and I have a valid claim against this person. Enforcing the claim on my behalf makes for a valuable business proposition.

 

Nope, she has a house full of weapons and booby traps and several militia buddies. Not much material wealth to extract. She likes to prey upon the loners and isolated since they have little support from friends.

[Skatteflyktning]

Realism would be nice once in a while. This person is not at all powerful. Still she has a house, weapons and booby traps, that must add up to some $

Endret 20. mars 2013 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

Yeah, and what you fail to realize my friend, is that even the most staunch supporters of govermental control back in John Adams' day, were practically anarchist compared to the "Conservatives" today.

 

The social theories of the Democrats hadn't even been invented at that time, and had someone traveled back in time, and given them a full briefing on the Keynesian economics that our so-called "welfare states" are built on, they would have been utterly shocked and dismayed.

 

You have no idea what kind of knowledge I have regarding our founding fathers and their political philosophies. I suspect you did not take early american history at an american university, nor visit Monticello 20 times in your lifetime as I have. On the other hand, that would be presumptuous of me since I don't know anythng about your background.

 

We could get into a debate about how the founding fathers would view the social justice of the welfare economics, but it would be quite a unnecessary diversion. My larger point was that John Adams was worried about law and order and the greedy side of human nature. Many founding fathers were worried that the USA might turn into the "anarchy" like the french revolution where mob rule, violence and terror reigned (in their minds)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it a peculiar assumption you need to assert for yourself? That I genuinely want people to suffer, just so you'll be able to make sense of my views?

Unclear what you are referring to.

 

 

Isn't it possible, that the reason goverment protects the weak, is precicely because both you and me and the rest of us, care about each other?

Absolutely, it is the foundation of a liberal democracy that the vast majority is civil and respectful. I'm not worried about the vast majority, I am concerned about the small minority.

 

 

Say I had told you 15 years ago, that, in the course of a few years, millions of people from every walk of life, would get together, and volunteer their time and effort, to create the most amazing and fantastic and complete collection of information that has ever existed on the planet, demanding no money, obeying no order, and answering to noone, except their own desires to do good. And that everyone, in the entire would, would be allowed to help out, and we could all enjoy this collective work at no cost....

 

Would you have belived me? And if so; Wouldn't you have taken for granted, that we'd need some sort of oversight for a project like that?

Yet there it is.

 

Wikipedia has oversight due to vandalism of a small minority, you are incorrect.

 

 

 

And isn't it strange, that although the US goverment today, is ten times the size of John Adams government, people back then flourished, yet here in the present, everything seems to be getting worse.

 

Does this story seem believable to you?

 

If you were female, native american, slave or not a property owner you did not fluorish in Adam's time. Adams would have a hard time thinking of a black man as president.

 

I genuinely hope you'll wake up to reality.

 

I tend not to trust those who believe they have a lock on reality, humility is the key to great knowledge.

[jjkoggan]

Realism would be nice once in a while. This person is not at all powerful. Still she has a house, weapons and booby traps, that must add up to some $

 

Some money but not worth risking death.

[Skatteflyktning]

Some money but not worth risking death.

 

So, we've gone full circle from a very powerful person to a pennyless bum?