Chaoticoli Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 I am new to the anarchy scene. I used to be a minarchist. What really changed my mind was the Non-Aggression Principle. I do have one concern, though. What is truly the difference in determining law between a direct democracy and anarchism (despite the initiation of force)?
MrCapitalism Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 50% -1 don't get their preferences implemented.
MrCapitalism Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Imagine you lived in a world in which the eternal question of "Mac vs. PC" was settled by a vote... how do you think that would turn out?
Chaoticoli Posted January 14, 2013 Author Posted January 14, 2013 Well, I was under the impression that just because a society is anarchistic does not mean that it doesn't have laws. So, if a society determines some laws, but still has no rulers, does that mean it's still anarchy? If so, what exactly is the difference?
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Anarchic law is based on natural law or, common law, which is based on the non aggression principle and it's application to any and every dispute one can imagine. Outside those basic tenets, anarchic law would primarily exist within contracts between individuals. Suggested reading: No Treason - Lysander Spooner An Essay on the Trial by Jury - Lysander Spooner Universally Preferable Behavior, A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics - Stefan Molyneux Spooner's works were writtten in the mid nineteenth century but could be easily construed as having been written today, writing style and verbiage notwithstanding. They will give you an easy to understand framework of the theory of natural law and how trials were conducted when Britain's justice was based on it. Stef's work is a bit complicated to follow but it posits an easy to understand method of determining the validity of moral rules, ergo, proposed laws.
Chaoticoli Posted January 14, 2013 Author Posted January 14, 2013 I will check out those readings soon. In the meantime, how is "natural law" determined and by whom is it determined? Is it determined democratically? I just feel like there's some grey area there. Are there any situations where contracts are not good for the situation and a universal principle on the issue can't realistically be determined? One example I can think of off the top of my head is the issue of abortion. You can't have a contract with a fetus (no pun intended). U.S. law allows abortion in any state. But, determining whether abortion is right or wrong has seemed inconclusive. If abortion were really murder, doesn't the fetus have protection through the non-aggression principle? I'm not trying to open an abortion debate, but rather just obtain a better understanding of what a society does in a given situation. Hopefully science resolves these kinds of situations .
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 Natural law is determined through the notion of property rights and a respect thereof. In short, through the non agression principle. Who determines natural law in a given instance is the local community. For example, in a typical common law court in 17th century Britain, the townsmen (women hadn't yet received rights) present on the day a trial was held determined the guilt or innocence of the accused. When the King was the plaintiff, the jury first judged the validity of the King's complaint (law) and then, only if the King's law was deemed just, they judged the accused. An example of how this could work in a stateless society of today is that in a township made up of fundamentalist Christians, common law might include some prohibition on the consumption of alchohol while in a neighboring town of rational thinkers, there would be no such prohibition. If the accused in the fundamentalist town agreed to leave, he would be aquitted of his "crime" with no restitution owed or he could choose to pay restitution to his accuser and he would be allowed to stay. As for contracts, your question is somewhat vague. If you and I agree on the terms of a contract and I break them.... the contract is the only vehicle for adjudicating my guilt. Of course, our contract won't likely stipulate that I'm not allowed to murder you, since murder is a proscribed behavior based upon the NAP. So if I murdered you and we had a contract for services rendered, then obviously the contract would be useless for that charge. It's late and abortion is a very detailed and highly emotional topic of conversation so I'm going to graciously decline speaking to that topic.
aerocabin Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 What is truly the difference in determining law between a direct democracy and anarchism (despite the initiation of force)? Consent of the majority versus consent of each individual.
Chaoticoli Posted January 15, 2013 Author Posted January 15, 2013 " If the accused in the fundamentalist town agreed to leave, he would be aquitted of his "crime" with no restitution owed or he could choose to pay restitution to his accuser and he would be allowed to stay." So, one can break the rules of a society and then just leave with no consequences? Let's say an Atheist consumes alcohol in this society then decides to leave, but unfortunately, while the atheist was drunk driving, he killed a person. How do you pay restitution for a life? Is the "restitution" determined by the people in the town? Is the primary difference between anarchy and democracy is that you have the ability to opt. out (despite the initiation of force)?Abortion's was not of particular value. I was just trying to find an example which would not fall under the NAP/universal principles and not be able to be sorted out through contract. I'm sure there are some examples you could think of.
Chaoticoli Posted January 15, 2013 Author Posted January 15, 2013 When I think of examples like this, it's not like I am saying that I am pro-government in any fashion. I am just trying to have the best understanding possible. You guys discuss these kinds of topics all the time, so i'm sure you can point me in the right direction and provide your detailed explanations .
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 "So, one can break the rules of a society and then just leave with no consequences?" Selling one's home, finding another and moving all your stuff isn't a consequence? "Let's say an Atheist consumes alcohol in this society then decides to leave, but unfortunately, while the atheist was drunk driving, he killed a person." What atheist is going to be drunk driving around in a fundamentalist town? Surely he doesn't live there and since there are no bars to hop, he'd have to have brought his own drink along for a nice drive through a place he doesn't care anything about.... Not to mention, there's a considerable difference between consuming alcohol and vehicular homicide. And... what does it matter that the person who commits vehicular homicide is a) atheist and/or b) drunk? And for the record... in cases of accidental death due to another person's negligence it is customary (even in today's statist society) that the victims family be renumerated the amount of lifetime income the victim would have earned plus all associated costs of burial, et al plus pain and suffering. There's nothing at all about a stateless society that would change that, save the probablility that pain and sufferring damages would be more rationally calculated. "Is the primary difference between anarchy and democracy is that you have the ability to opt. out (despite the initiation of force)?" I don't understand what you mean by (despite the initiation of force). Do you mean aside from the initiation of force? As in... compulsion to follow arbitrary rules set forth by people who don't know you that are designed to inhibit or stop the free movement and voluntary interaction of peaceful individuals? In the end, I'm not a legal specialist and the proposed solutions I've mentioned here are rudamentary at best. If you're interested in hearing some much, much, more well thought out solutions I would recommend Stef's book Practical Anarchy, the Center For a Stateless Society's website and, perhaps, Larkin Rose's website. And try to keep in mind, solving the minutia of a stateless society is not the only thing standing between statism and freedom. In fact, it's the last thing we need to worry about, because once enough people see the evil of statism for what it is, those things will be but wrinkles to be pressed out of a fine suit. []
Chaoticoli Posted January 15, 2013 Author Posted January 15, 2013 This cleared things up quite a bit . Thank you!
Recommended Posts