Breaking: Drama at Manch Porc Manor

[J’raxis 270145]

J'Raxis,
     This is not a philosophical hypothetical situation.  It involves real people, and real issues with the safety and security of those in Porc Manor.  This is not a "teaching moment" or whatever else you would like it to be.

Which means what? That doing what's right is only appropriate in hypothetical situations, and not when it involves real people or someone's safety and security? If one isn't willing to apply what one believes to actual, real-world situations, one might as well not believe in it.

[Vitruvian]

As a former tenant at 412 Central, I thought I would add my voice to the choir.  I do not know Meg, Daniel, or Adam, personally, so I'll refrain from commenting on their situation, but I will say this: Alec Muller has my full confidence and trust.  In the five months I lived under his roof, Alec was ever the gentleman, a kind and honest person par excellence.  I have every reason to believe Alec's account of the events in question.

[mackler]

My adversary has taken this to the government, and I will now have to deal with this in a government forum.  If not speaking on the subject makes me seem like a guilty party with something to hide, then I will just have to live with this until I get my day in court.  I will bring the evidence that I have, and we will see who the real offender is.

[John Edward Mercier]

That would be the definition of an anarchist... totally self-governed striving towards a perceived maximum personal value.

The part in bold sounds more like objectivism which is completely unrelated to anarchy (and in fact a lot of objectivists reject anarchy, irrationally IMO, but that's another long thread). Anarchy is merely the rejection of archons, or a ruling elite class of people like politicians and police. Trying to associate a lot of other meanings to it is probably why there are so many flavors of anarchist.

Regarding objectivism, it's an easy case to make that it's NOT in your self interest to isolate yourself and make everyone distrust you and not want to do business with you. It is generally understood within the philosophy that it's in our self interest to work with, e.g. openly trade with, others in a totally voluntary and honest manner. It's in your self interest to develop and maintain a reputation as a trustworthy and likable person. It's a common straw man to portray objectivism as a philosophy promoting back-stabbing selfishness. Ayn Rand talked about the "virtue of selfishness", and so kind of set herself up for this with her choice of language, but I believe her intention was to sort of shock people out of the indoctrination they had received that promoted self-sacrifice as a justification for a vast social state.

No anarchy is the rejection of any rulers. Regardless of whether an archon or other individual.
Percieved maximum value is individualistic... and can't be defined by a broader philosophy.
Parasites have done as well in the ecosystem as symbiotic organisms.

[John Edward Mercier]

But voluntarily funding the state is something else altogether.

"Adam Mackler Productions is a proud supporter of the City of Seattle, which has encouraged this important artistic flourishing. Adam Mackler Productions gives the City of Seattle five percent of all door receipts from all AMP events held within the city. AMP supports Seattle because Seattle supports the arts!"

Is Mackler even an anarchist/voluntaryist?

We all need to remember that not every FSP participant is—yet, at least. Even though I don't support it, and wouldn't do it myself, I'm not going to fault someone who still does believe in the State from using the State's legal system when such person genuinely feels they've been wronged. I recommend to everyone involved in disputes that've reached an impasse to use a mediator instead of the courts, but I understand that people who are freestaters, but not anarchists, are still going to see legitimacy in using the courts. And, if we can convince such people to sit down with a mediator, and the situation is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, it serves as an example and may very well convince them of the superiority of such solutions in the future.

Anarchists are not going to accept the legitimacy of any arbitration... State or otherwise. They, and they alone, are the single highest authority in their perception.

[dalebert]

No anarchy is the rejection of any rulers. Regardless of whether an archon or other individual.

Does it matter what people who call themselves anarchist actually believe or do you just want to argue semantics for the sake of argument?

Parasites have done as well in the ecosystem as symbiotic organisms.

Anyway, there are creatures that are adapted to being individualistic, like alligators who will eat their own young, or parasitic like a tapeworm, but humans are neither. We have adapted to get great benefit from working together, and objectivists and many others would argue that we work much more effectively if it's done in a voluntary fashion without fraud, and so it is in our self interest to do so.

[John Edward Mercier]

The position is important from the outward perception of the events.
Many have signified themselves to be anarchists... when in actuality have more voluntaryist beliefs.

The situtation is that the outside world is going to view the events the same as Jeremy did...

J'Raxis,
     This is not a philosophical hypothetical situation.  It involves real people, and real issues with the safety and security of those in Porc Manor.  This is not a "teaching moment" or whatever else you would like it to be.

Which means what? That doing what's right is only appropriate in hypothetical situations, and not when it involves real people or someone's safety and security? If one isn't willing to apply what one believes to actual, real-world situations, one might as well not believe in it.

[Russell Kanning]

I can attest to Dale having adhd and many other disorders.
All I know is that I have had Mackler on ignore for some reason. I didn't know he considered himself an FSP participant or that he lived in NH, let alone Porc Central. I don't think I know this person.

So is Alec and this mackler guy both serving each other with government paperwork?

I like Alec and some of the guys that live there, like Error.

[Russell Kanning]

As a former tenant at 412 Central, I thought I would add my voice to the choir.  I do not know Meg, Daniel, or Adam, personally, so I'll refrain from commenting on their situation, but I will say this: Alec Muller has my full confidence and trust.  In the five months I lived under his roof, Alec was ever the gentleman, a kind and honest person par excellence.  I have every reason to believe Alec's account of the events in question.

I think that is a good way to look at it.

[dalebert]

Many have signified themselves to be anarchists... when in actuality have more voluntaryist beliefs.

I consider myself both. Most self-described free market anarchists do not consider someone an archon that they have chosen to obey without coercion for whatever reason. We are the only ones who have authority over ourselves, but we can allocate it, if done explicitly and not through some vague notion of a social contract. We may choose to follow someone because we feel they're more knowledgeable in a certain endeavor, or because they're paying us to, or through some explicit contractual agreement based on mutual benefit, like a protection service that expects you to agree to some common sense rules about not violating the rights of others or forfeit their protection. Some, like yourself, may argue otherwise, but that really depends on what flavor of anarchist your talking about. What I just described is in line with free market anarchy but not some forms of socialist anarchy.

[Feanor7]

J'Raxis,
     This is not a philosophical hypothetical situation.  It involves real people, and real issues with the safety and security of those in Porc Manor.  This is not a "teaching moment" or whatever else you would like it to be.

Which means what? That doing what's right is only appropriate in hypothetical situations, and not when it involves real people or someone's safety and security? If one isn't willing to apply what one believes to actual, real-world situations, one might as well not believe in it.

I guess I should have been more clear - I am not an anarchist/voluntaryist, I am a minarchist.  I believe that there is a legitimate role for a state's monopolization of force (not saying that our current state is awesome, but in an ideal state) in cases where a party refuses to work through privately run channels.  I think you are wrong, basically.  It's not a moral judgment, just an intellectual one. 

However, while we are on the subject, I think that there are some very interesting and convincing cases to be made for privately run legal systems that have been given the stamp of legitimacy by a state who has been given the consent of its citizens to monopolize the use of force.

The problem with restitution-based systems of justice is that there are some crimes that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the victim through financial restitution.

EDIT: one of my favorite things about my time in New Hampshire so far is that it's left me feeling like a crazy statist, while in almost every other situation I am seen as an anti-government fanatic.  Huzzah for changing frames of reference!   

EDITED AGAIN: apparently I misunderstood what voluntarist meant.  If it means that one believes that all interactions should be consensual (including the implied consent that exists when one cedes some small part of their autonomy, e.g. the use of force against others, to the state), then count me in.

[John Edward Mercier]

A voluntarist would be a minarchist... in that they believe in a social structure were all interactions are consensual. This is why Herbert refused the title of anarchist.

[dalebert]

EDITED AGAIN: apparently I misunderstood what voluntarist meant.  If it means that one believes that all interactions should be consensual (including the implied consent that exists when one cedes some small part of their autonomy, e.g. the use of force against others, to the state), then count me in.

I've never met a voluntaryist who believed in implied consent. A voluntaryist believes all interaction should be voluntary. The state does not fit into that. As a monopoly, you can't opt out. It seems to me to always be used as a more P.C. term for anarchist. For instance, I would never give my consent to a monopoly because I think corruption is inevitable with monopolies. So if you want to implement a state, I will explicitly tell you that I don't consent to that to make sure there is no misunderstanding about implied consent.

The term "libertarian" has already been watered down to near meaninglessness. Let's please not water down the term "voluntaryist" now as well.

[Feanor7]

By "implied consent," I only mean that if the people who voluntarily set up the state delegated the legitimate use of force to a particular agency or class of agencies (like private security/insurance groups, etc.), those who chose to be criminals (and of course I only mean real criminals, i.e. those who use theft, force, or fraud) among those who consented to governance could be imprisoned/have force used on them, and it would be with their implied consent.

Of course, as the thief is being hauled off to jail, he won't consent.

[FTL_Ian]

Feanor, have you read "The Market for Liberty"?

http://book.freekeene.com