Ville et anarki ha fungert i Norge?

[Skatteflyktning]

Can't extract money from the penniless

Of course you can, give me your worst scenario. Crime, verdict and criminals bios

Education will be too expensive for many and one can't educate oneself when one is vulnerable and unsafe

Indeed, just like an "Air Force One" is too expensive for many since they have other more urgent priorities.

 

A meaningless platitude that ignores the question at hand. Every afghan and Somali I have met much prefers the safer warlordism(according to you) offered in Ohio to their constant fear of being captured and killed in their homelands

Did you meet them in Ohio, or in Somaliland?

[Politrikks]

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.

 

So what you are saying is that most people did not want slavery, but were just waiting around for their government to stop protecting the slave owners?

 

 

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

 

Sure there can still be crime(ie. slavery) in an anarchist society, as there still is slavery in many modern states today(both legal and illegal).

 

The larger point is that without the state to protect the slave owners, the majority might have freed the slaves sooner.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

So what you are saying is that most people did not want slavery, but were just waiting around for their government to stop protecting the slave owners?

 

The question was whether expression of majority rule would cause a civil war

 

 

 

Sure there can still be crime(ie. slavery) in an anarchist society, as there still is slavery in many modern states today(both legal and illegal).

 

The larger point is that without the state to protect the slave owners, the majority might have freed the slaves sooner.

 

Nobody was required to have slaves and those that did could have freed them at any time. Many in fact, did free their slaves and if you were not wealthy, you had none.

It was the powerful who retained their slaves and only gave them up after a civil war. In an anarchy, the tradition would likely continue to this day, since they did not free them when they could have done so

[Left Blank]

Skjer med engelsk? Alle involvert her kan norsk.

[Politrikks]

The question was whether expression of majority rule would cause a civil war

 

To be honest, the war was not so much about slavery or the abolishment thereof, but more about uniting the states(against their will) right?

 

The Union could easily have stopped supporting slavery without starting a war could it not?

 

 

Nobody was required to have slaves and those that did could have freed them at any time. Many in fact, did free their slaves and if you were not wealthy, you had none.

It was the powerful who retained their slaves and only gave them up after a civil war. In an anarchy, the tradition would likely continue to this day, since they did not free them when they could have done so

 

True that you could have slaves in an anarchy too, but that would be against anarchist law( ie. using coercion). As you said, nobody was required to have slaves. But if i am not mistaking one would have been coerced by the state if one tried to free a slave, or as a slave, try to escape?

[jjkoggan]

To be honest, the war was not so much about slavery or the abolishment thereof, but more about uniting the states(against their will) right?

 

The Union could easily have stopped supporting slavery without starting a war could it not?

 

The main factors of the war were certainly about both slavery and the limits of federal power. Historians differ about their relative importance, which changed over time. The Union never supported slavery, it only tolerated the right of some states to allow it. The United States would not have existed without tolerance of slavery since the southern states would not have joined the USA.

 

 

True that you could have slaves in an anarchy too, but that would be against anarchist law( ie. using coercion). As you said, nobody was required to have slaves. But if i am not mistaking one would have been coerced by the state if one tried to free a slave, or as a slave, try to escape?

 

Slaves were considered property, free to give away or set free at any time without consequence. Stealing that property, was illegal. Without a strong central authority and strong local support of slavery I fail to see how anarchy law would be able to free the slaves from the powerful southern slaveowners better than the all out war that was required, not would they ever agree to participate in an anarchy that had that requirement.

[Politrikks]

Slaves were considered property, free to give away or set free at any time without consequence. Stealing that property, was illegal.

 

And the union upheld this property right am i right?

 

Without a strong central authority and strong local support of slavery I fail to see how anarchy law would be able to free the slaves from the powerful southern slaveowners better than the all out war that was required, not would they ever agree to participate in an anarchy that had that requirement.

 

You are probably right, but in an anarchy one would not have this strong central authority that protected slave owners right to own people(altough it did change it's mind somewhat). It is true that this might have resulted in a situation were powerful slave owners still would have slaves. But as i said, anarchy is not a guarantee against coercion, the state one the other hand is a guarantee for coercion.

[1245112654122755325882462]

Skjer med engelsk? Alle involvert her kan norsk.

 

Tenkte det samme.

[Politrikks]

Skjer med engelsk? Alle involvert her kan norsk.

 

Learning by doing.

[1245112654122755325882462]

 

 

Learning by doing.

Engelsk er jo et rikt språk, men i en så simpel diskusjon virker det jo litt overfladisk..

 

Eg veit Øystein Sunde har sagt det.. men vet også han siterte noen

 

"Har du noe å fortelle, fortell det på Norsk, har du ikke noe å fortelle, da tar du det på engelsk"

[Politrikks]

Engelsk er jo et rikt språk, men i en så simpel diskusjon virker det jo litt overfladisk..

 

Eg veit Øystein Sunde har sagt det.. men vet også han siterte noen

 

"Har du noe å fortelle, fortell det på Norsk, har du ikke noe å fortelle, da tar du det på engelsk"

 

Que?

[1245112654122755325882462]

 

 

Que?

 

Når diskusjonen kan føres på norsk er det ingen grunn til å la vær

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Que?

Que lastima, no hay remedio! Hablamos noruego en la futura