Openeye

Yes and laws would still exist in an anarchist society. Would they not be enforced? The individual who is fully capable of saving another human being from certain death yet decides not to is not justified in his inaction, they are in fact an aggressor as they have made a conscious choice to let someone die for no reason other than selfishness. If the individual in question is proven guilty then all the situations in your second paragraph are irrelevant, because the individual has sacrificed their liberty by compromising the liberty of another individual resulting in their death. Law enforcement would then have right to take the individual in to custody, and yes against the individuals will if necessary. I still consider isolation from society by means of rehab centers to be demonstrably more effective than financial exile, as financial exile would more than likely drive an individual already predisposed to commit immoral actions to commit more immoral actions out of desperation due to being subject to the state of nature. Is this force I describe unjust? If so why? This is because we currently live a violent state run society. In a stateless society proportional force would have to be practiced, if not the enforcement agent who escalates the use of force unjustly would be condemned and brought to justice.

I do not understand why you make the leap to capital punishment the moment force is mentioned. It would be pointless to threaten someone with force during the event itself, in fact if someone was present and able to make such a threat they should simply ignore the individual standing their gawking at a child drowning and save the child in question. Afterwards condemning the gawkers actions, and perhaps informing the community of the individuals inaction. Now say the gawker is the only one around for the drowning and people show up afterwards. The community then has every right to start an investigation to determine if said individual was capable of saving the child, and if they determine that person could have indeed saved that person, and decided not to either out of sloth or malevolence then the community can render a verdict of negligent homicide. Because of that individuals inaction another died due to a completely avoidable reason. This does not warrant a death sentence, but perhaps temporary removal from society. In an Ancap world most likely they would be financially ostracized. I’m not really a fan of the “well we would just brand him a dick” mentality. Someone is being a dick when they cut you off in traffic, not when they let another human being die, or arguably actively contribute to their demise.

Sorry to just jump in suddenly but can you clarify what you mean here? Who's choice are we talking about the polluter or the one negatively effected by said pollution?

I would like to thank everyone for their replies, they were all very helpful. I have made the decesion to leave these boards at least for a while. I need to gain some self confidence and devote myself to gaining a better understanding of philosophy and anarchism so I can actually speak about these things without feeling empty. I will be taking exelents advice and I will be seeking therapy. I know for sure I have a lot of work to do in that area. So I guess this is goodbye at least for now. Thanks for all the help everyone.

I am thinking about leaving FDR and unsubscribing from Stefs YouTube channel. I have not been on this site for very long (though I have lurked for some time), and I have not donated anything to Stef or the FDR community as a whole so I do not expect that me leaving has any importance or that anyone will really care, but I wanted to make this thread to get some input on the reason I am contemplating this. I think I have become too reliant of Stefs prospective. I carry around in my wallet a quote from Christopher Hitchens which has always been a source of both comfort and inspiration to me. He said…“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.” I carry this around with me because when I heard it my life was changed. I became a skeptic and started critically thinking about my belief systems. I have been throughout my life (and arguably still am) a follower and very impressionable; when I was young I was not necessarily encouraged to have my own beliefs as I was raised in a religious household (Mormon) and I was always a very shy person. This led me to latch on to anything that my parents believed in (i.e. I was Mormon because they were; I was conservative because they were, etc). When my parents split and I got a little older I went through a rebel phase and for the first time in my life I felt a little liberated. I moved away to the other side of the country on a whim in an attempt to find myself. However looking back on it now I was just following a new leader (or leaders) in the form of the literature I read, the media I consumed, and the people I surrounded myself with. To me at the time 9/11 was an inside job not due to any evidence, but because my brother, my friends and some charismatic guys on the net and elsewhere said so. After a few years I started questioning some things I believed (probably due to some depression) this is when I discovered the Hitchens quote. For the first time in my life I told myself that I do not know shit; that all my beliefs are based off of laziness. I asked myself how I can hold the beliefs that I do without actually understanding them. I came to the conclusion that my beliefs (true or not) were faith based positions. I promised myself I would never fall into this trap again. But alas…I believe I have. I no longer do the work I just let Stef do it and then say to myself “Stef is smart he must be right weeeeeeeee!” So today after feeling really uncomfortable and depressed I went out of my way to convince myself that all my beliefs were false, which was just as counterproductive as it sounds. After that little bit of self abuse I just sat and went into a state of deep thought and came to a very sad conclusion in that I cannot listen to anyone who is in any sort of spotlight without becoming absolutely enamored. Maybe I am in the right and my desire to pursue truth trumps listening to Stef and lurking in these forums, or maybe I’m just crying out for help with this thread simply dismayed that my beliefs are almost universally rejected I’m honestly not sure. So any comments or suggestions would be great, thanks all.

To put it bluntly...yes it is okay. I would like to say though that this whole situation has been conflicting for me. I do not recognize the governments claim to this land, but the enviormentalist side of me wants to say that if this man is not maintaining the land that is unowned he is immoral. Now if he is maintaining the land at his own expense than I have no issues with the grazing on unowned land.

I have been to that site and I actually agree with some of their findings Primitivism is not the "one true" sustainable philosophy. Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years yes, but in misery and fear. Fear of what lurked in the darkness and fear of the earth that shook beneath their feet. By abondoning modern technology we would be ever more suseptable to destruction. All it would take to end primitivist society is a germ. I say that with confidence because in a primitivst society there will be no major medical research, so the moment a disease surfaces that aggressively targets our species we are dead. Sure, once we can leave the planet we will drastically reduce the population of the planet by terraforming/colonizing other ones. This will allow for the majority of the planet to return to its "natural" state and the only human presence on the planet will be in the major city centers. This is all of course dependeent on if we actually have the ability to travel to other star systems, terraform, or bulid large space stations that simulate earth like conditions.

The part of their conversation that I thought was the most interesting was when they were talking about the feasibility of charity as a substitute for social welfare programs. They argue that those who give to charity tend to only give to certain groups that conform to their belief systems and if given the choice they would not give to other groups due to what can only be considered bigotry. They also talk about how charity massively declines during times of economic instability thus creating an inconsistent form of income for those who would depend on it.

While I can respect the primitivst point of view, I still think that technological advancement holds the key towards true freedom. In the video you posted around 4:00 he starts talking about how no alternative energy source can make up for fossil fuels. I would tend to agree that is the case at least at the moment. To say that there is no way we can find an alternative is being dishonest. There are theoretical models of energy solutions that while not be practical today may very well be practical a hundred years from now. Until then yes we have to keep burning fossil fuels to sustain our growing population. One may ask why we have the right to manipulate the environment in a way that benefits us and not the other species on this planet. To that I say because we are the only species that really matters on this planet in the end. if it came down to us strip mining the planet ad killing off every animal in order to survive, than that is what we have to do. Now I do not think we have gotten to that point yet, and we should do are best to preserve the original state of the world and the animals that live on it. But if we have to turn vast amounts of land into farmland to feed humans and turn cause a vast reduction in a certain species well I'm sorry thats the way the cookie crumbles. If that species came up to us and literally said "yo don't go destroying our home" and then hands us a document which displays their knowledge of language and mathematics than I would reconsider, but so far we are the only intelligent species capable of understanding and manipulating not only our own planet and environment but potentially the whole solar system, galaxy, and universe. Hopefully technological advancement will reach a point where we can leave this planet, and in that case we will have just solved nearly ever problem humans have experienced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da_nsV99ho4 Just wanted to post this here to get input from anyone is interested. The article being covered is interesting http://www.democracyjournal.org/32/the-voluntarism-fantasy.php?page=all There is also a libertarian who calls in and starts a debate with Sam. It starts at about 1:03:00 Stuff like this is the reason I'm always in a state of cognitive dissonance

Just wanted to say that this is probably one of the best threads I have read on this site so far. Keep it up guys I'm having such a blast watching this intellectual battle be waged.

I'm not sure since such a place currently does not exist. Since there is no large support for anarchism in the modern world why would we assume people would just give up on statism if such a society existed? Simply because they will not be taxed anymore? That does not make much since to me since the vast majority of the population supports taxation and supports the legtiamacy of the state. Do you really think that innovators who start with limited resources can compete against a large conglomerate supported by subsidies? If a farmer for example wanted to sell produce to his local community how is he going to compete against a large chain store that gets its produce from the farmers competitors who get massive tax breaks and tax dollars from a state? The only way to prevent that would be to not trade with states that still use fascist economic models, but there would be no way to prevent such trade due to the NAP and the rejection of protectionism. Well I would say that can be true, but I tend to view the state as more of a force that's driven by power via control. The state is not always malevolent (its immorality is independent from its intentions). In fact modern western governments I truly believe want to help their citizens, because a happy citizen is a happy worker and a satisfied citizen is satisfied with the state. Someone who greatly benefits from social programs is not necessarily going to give them up due to some ethical conflict. Human beings always look for the easiest way to survive, and resisting government is far from easy. The state would not necessarily be the one who is competing against the free society. It would be the corporations within said state competing against private owners within the free society. This is perfectly reasonable because the free society promotes free trade. Well they were not communists, at least in no way comparable to authoritarian communism. To say that there was only one anarchist movement in Spain and that it embraced communism is not true. There were multiple anarchist philosophies at play before, during, and after the Spanish civil war. Anarcho-individualism for example was one of the major philosophies embraced during that time. It was even respected by the anarcho-communists and the anarcho-syndicates. Many were violent that is true. No one can excuse the use of violence against the rural religious and the priests of the churches, or the rioting that resulted in the anarchists gaining power in the areas they has popular support. That being said the majority of their violence would not be considered a violation of the NAP as they were defending themselves from Franco and his allies. The biggest mistake they made was accepting help from the Soviet Union and cooperating with the loyalists instead of declaring independence. The communists controlled the Popular Front so it was no surprise that they would use their propaganda and superior numbers to attempt to destroy the anarchists which was probably their goal if Franco was defeated. It is also worth to note that if the communists and Popular Front did not disarm the anarchist militias the anarchist revolution may not have been crushed so easy and Franco would have had a harder time advancing. Thanks for the comments Mike!

How can you have a society that embraces anarchism when the majority of the population disagrees with it? If an anarchist society came to be do you think everyone would accept it? That is the entire purpose of this thread and I have yet to hear (save Mike who addressed it) any answer that comes close to addressing that segment of my post. I never said that "not theft" can't work. I said an anarchist society can not compete against a society that does not embrace "non theft". This is because a state that uses taxes can invest large sums of money into programs that its citizenry can benefit from (despite the inefficiency of said programs) and into technology that further extends the power of the sate. Not only that but it can prop up any massive corporations it may have with that money as well. So how does a business in an anarchist society hope to compete against a massive corporation supported by the state? "Non-theft" would work fine I believe, but only in a society that fully embraces the idea of anarchism which again would require that all states cease to exist.

It is true that major social changes occur due to the protests of a minority. However no major social change has ever come close to what us anarchists are suggesting. All revolutions have manifested out of the suffering of its participants, but they have all resulted in either the creation of a centralized state that is slightly less violent, or a centralized state that is even more violent. No state has ever been founded on the idea that governments should not exist. Save one..arguably... Anarchist Spain is the only fairly modern example of a revolution that resulted in an anarchist state, but unfortunately it no longer exists. Its failure is a perfect example of the concerns I have risen. It was not enough that the populace who desired change within Spain actually cooperated and manifested their vision, because it was destroyed by both internal dissent and external forces. I hate to say it but it leads me to believe (at least by using Spain as an example) that the Anarchist state is weak in comparison to its more aggressive and lucrative fascist neighbors. If the US for example dissolved and became a completely anarchist society how would it hope to compete against China, or the EU now that it no longer has the ability to collect taxes from its people? This is why in my OP I mentioned consensus, because without it the state will continue to exist. Given that such a consensus (at least at this moment) is impossible leads me to my original assertion that the Anarchist state is a futurist vision dependent on a resource and technological revolution. I do not mean to be pessimistic. I'm just trying to be realistic. We have obviously taken the first steps in achieving our vision; I think the internet for example is the first true piece of technology that supports an anarchist society.

When having a discussion concerning a complex subject there will undoubtedly be disagreement. Due to the various number of positions concerning the subject and the conflicting data presented disagreement is "simply" expected. So perhaps you are correct to say that the disagreement is not simple and that the process for said disagreement is in fact by its nature complex. So the phrase I should use is "expected" disagreement. Okay so if the person who holds the position that taxation is justified and a person who murders are not the same why disassociate yourself from a person or persons who holds that position on taxation? I expect that you will bring up the "against me" argument, an argument that I disagree with Stef on. No doubt that everyone I would ask the question to (according to Stef) would outright deny using force against me. I believe them. Despite them voting against my (and their own) interests if I was not to pay my taxes they still would not want to see me imprisoned or killed. In fact if I committed any crime (save perhaps murder or rape which are far more emotionally charged) they would not want to see the initiation of force used against me.