Libertyblues Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Hey Philosopher Kings, I got into an other one of those discussions regarding anarchy. The guy kept persisting that if people sign contracts with security firms, hence giving them authority to use force, it's no longer anarchy because now we have a ruler. He also persisted that giving authority to people over a region makes this place a state. Can someone help me debunk these 2 arguments? Thanks dudes!
shirgall Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I got into an other one of those discussions regarding anarchy. The guy kept persisting that if people sign contracts with security firms, hence giving them authority to use force, it's no longer anarchy because now we have a ruler. He also persisted that giving authority to people over a region makes this place a state. You cannot delegate force that you cannot justifiably enact. A security firm defends your property or your life with the same force you use to defend it. You cannot delegate to a security firm the initiation of force because you cannot justify your own initiation of force. When someone steals a bike from you and you go take it back, that's not initiation, but you also cannot kidnap or kill them over something like that. The state kidnaps and kills people over minor infractions in comparison. 3
Tyler H Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 Hey Philosopher Kings, I got into an other one of those discussions regarding anarchy. The guy kept persisting that if people sign contracts with security firms, hence giving them authority to use force, it's no longer anarchy because now we have a ruler. He also persisted that giving authority to people over a region makes this place a state. Can someone help me debunk these 2 arguments? Thanks dudes! 1) To add to what Shirgall said - you are not authorizing a ruler because you are purchasing defense services (self defense and self defense via third party are not the initiation of force) that you would be able to stop purchasing at any time. 2) Saying that you are giving authority to people over a region doesn't make sense to me in the context of a free society. You would only be able to give someone control over a region that you owned (since you cannot sign over someone else's property or sign contracts for other people without their consent) and if you maintain ownership of that region then you still are the one ultimately in control (with the ability to remove any authority given at any time). The salient difference between a statist and free society is the presence or absence of force to secure funding. Force allows an organization to procure resources irrespective of quality and competition; this is how we are ruled. However, in the absence of force an organization must rely on the value of their product and the satisfaction of their customers to remain viable. If they are not able to provide a product or service that is of value then they cease to exist. Does this help? 2
EclecticIdealist Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 How does this differ from a government envisioned by the Founding Fathers of America? If Thomas Jefferson is correct that all governments derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed, and that government has no just power that is not possessed by the individual, then the only problem with the American system of government is that We the People have allowed elected and appointed individuals to unjustly usurp powers not delegated (or delegable) to them. And if this is the case, how does the American system of Government, when faithfully executed, differ from the Anarchist philosophy?
Slavik Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 1) When you sign a contract, you are doing so voluntarily. You are not signing a contract saying use unjustifiable force against me or others (as in the example of laws and taxation, or laws that were enacted by a majority.) You are also free to not sign that contract and go with a DRO that better suits you, unlike current police force where you have no choice. Main point is voluntarily VS. forced. Rulers force their laws on you they do not allow you to sign contracts. 2) Ask him to define a "state," here is a definition "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government" Compared to anarchy system this simply doesnt compare. 1
Recommended Posts