America's "Toughest Sheriff" caught enforcing laws he made-up

[Jacobus]

I shudder to think what would happen in the biggest cities if there were no centralized gov., I think we got a real taste of that here in the US during the aftermath of Catrina .

This is like pointing out how dumb government-school educated kids generally are and saying "this is why we need government schools".  It seemed to me the federal government's complete takeover after Katrina is what made the recovery effort the complete clusterfuck it was.  Are you saying it was the absence of government that caused this?

However, I do agree with you that being a non-anarchist does not necessarily make you a fascist.  I think Anton is just name-calling there.

[lildog]

+1 to thinkliberty for doing what I was also thinking of when reading lildog's post.

And +1 to Dale for providing the best answer to this:

Without government they storm in, kill you, rape the women then keep your land and anything else they find of value as their own.  There are no rules and no "establishment" to protect you.

History shows us that the default setting of society is not peace.  That's not a fair tale, that's what we see time and time again around us.

From the time history started to be recorded through today we see people killing one another because of religious beliefs or because they are persuaded by a leader.  And I'm not even talking about political leaders... look at the Manson family.  All it takes is someone to step up and others willing to follow.

Perhaps I am deluding myself into believing we might yet be able to draft a set of rules that allows for nearly everything you'd want in a voluntary society yet has the rules in place that also prevents us from killing one another and using might to make right but I'm at least willing to look at history and attempt to learn from it.  You guys here seem to live in the same liberal la la land that the left wingers use to back up their claims that government can fix the same problems it creates.  The only evidence presented so far of a volunteer society that works is the "Scotch Malt Whisky Society" which is first of all a private society so it too established boards for itself just as you guys first objected to in this discussion and secondly isn't what I'd consider a true society because they exist as part of the country they live in, following and abiding by the rules of that country.  They aren't opting out, just creating a subset within.

[lildog]

This is like pointing out how dumb government-school educated kids generally are and saying "this is why we need government schools".  It seemed to me the federal government's complete takeover after Katrina is what made the recovery effort the complete clusterfuck it was.  Are you saying it was the absence of government that caused this?

Katrina is an interesting example because it shows both where government fails AND where anarchy fails.

As people fled the area looters came in and robbed and stole anything and everything they could get their hands on.  That alone should show that the default setting of society is not peace and love and when people feel they can get away with something they will even if it means taking something from someone else.

But yes, you're correct in pointing to the failure of government as well.  The government stepped in and attempted to lead and couldn't get out of its own way.  Just as I can point to civilization break downs in cases such as the looters there are dozens of examples of government breakdowns as well.

[AntonLee]

you're more than welcome to spend all the money you have on whatever type of government you want.

please re-read. . . lots of "YOU" in there.  I didn't happen to mention about all the "we" and "our" that you keep bringing up. 

Frankly, you and your constitution have no bearing on my life.  You're just another person with an opinion and a way YOU think it should be done, and that's just dandy.  I wish YOU the best of luck with YOUR endeavors.  I don't plan on helping YOU pay for YOUR wishes, hopes and dreams.

The voluntary society you're very worried about, yeah about that, you don't really have to even think about it. . .you're not interested in a place that doesn't have an illegitimate coercive government. . .so you can play in your area. . .and I'll play in mine.

Frankly. . . if you call yourself a libertarian, perhaps you should worry more about your own estate and less about what everyone else is doing.  You don't have to worry about the Irish immigrants (lol) that you dislike. ..they're none of your damn business.  You don't have to worry about me either, I'm sure I'll live just fine knowing you don't like the way I do business and live my life.  I'm sure you'll live just fine too, since I won't be bothering you and all the rules you adore so much.

Good luck getting your government to do what it is you want.  I'll be doing business with people who believe in peace thanks!

Have a fantastic day!

[lildog]

AntonLee, you are making a lot of assumptions and incorrect assertions.

Frankly. . . if you call yourself a libertarian, perhaps you should worry more about your own estate and less about what everyone else is doing.

For starters I never called myself a libertarian.  I consider myself a constitutionalist.  I believe in a set of rules established to run a society to allow for what you want.  You to be able to be left alone yet also allow for protection so the person with the biggest gun and largest group of followers cannot simply do whatever they want to whomever they want simply because might makes right.

You don't have to worry about the Irish immigrants (lol) that you dislike. ..they're none of your damn business.

This is the 2nd time you made this claim as well and while I did point to the Irish as an example it isn't because I dislike them.  I used it as an example because it is something I have person experience with.  My brother in law is an Irish citizen and after meeting my sister he over stayed his visa and became illegal.  Now he and my sister and their child live in Ireland but are working within the rules to come here legally.  I'll be the first to admit that our rules are much too hard because they are preventing people like my brother in law who is a productive member who isn't looking to mooch off the rest of society from coming here.  But for every one of him there are 10 others who come here simply because they want the "benefits" of living in this country.  The "free" education, the "free" health care.  The "free" housing.

Until we can stop the government from giving away the property of others, don't you agree we should at the very least try to stop those who don't even follow the rules established for taking what doesn't belong to them?  I would think as much as you despise the government taking from others against their wills you'd object even stronger to people who cheat and lie to get the labor of others that even government is saying doesn't belong to them.  That's like double stealing.

[thinkliberty]

History shows us that the default setting of society is not peace.  That's not a fair tale, that's what we see time and time again around us.

From the time history started to be recorded through today we see people killing one another because of religious beliefs or because they are persuaded by a leader.  And I'm not even talking about political leaders... look at the Manson family.  All it takes is someone to step up and others willing to follow.

Perhaps I am deluding myself into believing we might yet be able to draft a set of rules that allows for nearly everything you'd want in a voluntary society yet has the rules in place that also prevents us from killing one another and using might to make right but I'm at least willing to look at history and attempt to learn from it.  You guys here seem to live in the same liberal la la land that the left wingers use to back up their claims that government can fix the same problems it creates.  The only evidence presented so far of a volunteer society that works is the "Scotch Malt Whisky Society" which is first of all a private society so it too established boards for itself just as you guys first objected to in this discussion and secondly isn't what I'd consider a true society because they exist as part of the country they live in, following and abiding by the rules of that country.  They aren't opting out, just creating a subset within.

All it takes is someone to step up and others willing to follow. -- So stop following violent psychopaths, tell everyone you know to stop following.

The US government extorts, tortures and kills people. Stop supporting people that are extorting, torturing and killing people. Stop following them.

You seem to live in the same liberal la la land that the left wingers use to back up their claims "that government can fix the problems."  The government does not fix anything, it makes it worse. -- I do not want YOUR government, just like YOU don't want the liberals government.

Again. Please stop supporting people that are violent. Please stop following people that endorse violence.

Please give peace a chance. Please support peaceful people. 

[CJS]

 Thanks to Jacobus  For a polite , calm response .

The Amish are a fine example of a volunteer community , but are hardly a good example of how huge urban communities would exist with no centralized system of management ... whether its garbage disposal making sure multi story buildings are structurally  sound .. and yes.. even a police force / fire department.

The Amish are a group of incredibly like minded people ... how many communities are in the same boat . I think lildog is right about humanity in general .. we are violent race and I fear we always will be .

I agree with you about the aftermath of Catrina ... the governors failure to call out the national guard in a timely manner then fema's bungling ( if in fact their horrible response was in not intentional ) was a huge contributing factor ... what do you think the outcome would have been like with zero response from any governmental bodies.

I hate the governing body here in Illinois . i hate that our police departments are now small military units and I hate that the gov just keeps getting stronger .. but I hold no delusions that my society would be functional in this part of the world with anarchy .

I do not believe the society anarchists want is possible in today's world ... it will always be controlled by who ever has the most well equipped followers .

[AntonLee]

I am not a violent race.  I'm quite peaceful.

I don't feel the need to be very polite when someone is continuing to choose to support a system that takes my money and hurts my friends.

"Hey Tony, I politely think you should hand over your money to my system or I'm going to kill you.  Okay? Thank you so much, what a great guy you are."

should I answer in a polite way when your ideas for the world include violence against me?  You don't have to buy into a voluntary society.  You don't have to be a part of it.

[CJS]

I am not a violent race.  I'm quite peaceful.

I don't feel the need to be very polite when someone is continuing to choose to support a system that takes my money and hurts my friends.

"Hey Tony, I politely think you should hand over your money to my system or I'm going to kill you.  Okay? Thank you so much, what a great guy you are."

should I answer in a polite way when your ideas for the world include violence against me?  You don't have to buy into a voluntary society.  You don't have to be a part of it.

Is this directed at me Anton ?

[thinkliberty]

I hate the governing body here in Illinois . i hate that our police departments are now small military units and I hate that the gov just keeps getting stronger .. but I hold no delusions that my society would be functional in this part of the world with anarchy .

I do not believe the society anarchists want is possible in today's world ... it will always be controlled by who ever has the most well equipped followers .

You can keep your government, just don't force me to pay for it. If you have a good government I am sure that you will have no problem getting people to pay for it without threatening people with violence.

Why do you support using violence to get what you want? Is extortion, torture and murder okay, if it's the government that does it? If people wear camouflage or badges they get to hurt people?   As long as some people vote to kill, extort and torture other people it makes it okay?

When is it okay to use violence? When is it wrong?

[Jacobus]

The only evidence presented so far of a volunteer society that works is the "Scotch Malt Whisky Society" which is first of all a private society so it too established boards for itself just as you guys first objected to in this discussion and secondly isn't what I'd consider a true society because they exist as part of the country they live in, following and abiding by the rules of that country.  They aren't opting out, just creating a subset within.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way.  It seems to me you are viewing the government as a protective bubble that enables anything peaceful within it to happen.  The government form, to you, defines the society.  But then you demand examples of where voluntary society works.  Now this just isn't fair given that some government claims control over every inch of Earth (and likely other celestial objects). 

My point though is that most human interaction is done within the sphere of voluntary society.  I believe this is a satisfactory answer to the demand of showing you where voluntary society has existed and works.  It exists and works every day!

Think of it another way: what if I claimed that there has never been an example of "government society" and then you list different governments that exist and how they interact with people.  but then I reply "those governments only existed where there was already voluntary society, and without that voluntary society the government would have been unable to exist".

Instead of thinking of voluntary society and government society as mutually exclusive, think of them as co-existing (but largely competitive, with an expansion of one requiring a corresponding shrinkage of teh other).

As people fled the area looters came in and robbed and stole anything and everything they could get their hands on.  That alone should show that the default setting of society is not peace and love and when people feel they can get away with something they will even if it means taking something from someone else.

I don't think this is a fair example to show the "default" behavior of most people.  If it were, wouldn't we all be pretty fucked no matter what?  I agree that some people try to do bad things, but do you really think that the police presence is what is preventing this total war of all against all?
 
I think something like a flea market is a better example. 

[Jacobus]

I believe thinkliberty's point is the most important (in this particular debate, anyway), and I have not seen it addressed.  It is this: all of the reasons you state for wanting a government would count against that very own government.

You say that leaders can convince followers to act violently, so you need a government to limit their power.  But then you centralize even more power in the government, which the very same type of evil leaders can use.  Doesn't this make the problem worse?  Now instead of controlling a church or a local gang, they control armies.

I liked Dale's cartoon because I thought it points out the absurdity of this idea that to defeat violence we need to create an entity capable of overwhelming violence that would be able to subdue all the smaller violence-makers.

[Jacobus]

And lastly (for now, it's been a while since I've participated in an anarchist/minarchist Internet debate  ) I want to say that I don't know if complete anarchy is possible or "works" (whatever that means) but that this question is irrelevant.

I don't know if the Amish model can result in New York City.  I don't know if highways could exist.  Maybe neither could happen.

But I think this top-down system-level thinking is the wrong approach, as it does not appeal to the conscience or the moral situation of an individual.  I want to focus on what my actions support, and what their moral consequences are.  This is what I encourage others to do as well. 

Applying this to government: do you advocate for government that performs acts you would find morally reprehensible if you had to perform them yourself?  What would you personally wish to see done to people who want to opt-out of government and refuse to pay taxes?

[CJS]

 I have yet to meet any one in this forum over a beer or at a bonfire , but I do look forward to it . I know  will get along great with some / most ... but I have an idea I will have problems with a few. I am grateful as hell this forum exists and support it on a monthly basis ( wish I could give more to your projects KAT and Russell ! )

I am sure most here have heard / answered my questions a hundred times , but I for one still appreciate your comments .


I do not think for one second many if not most people would automatically take care of all the things the gov has made their responsibility on their own. I have seen community "minor" response to disasters I a few times in my life .

I wonder what happens when one of the bigger street gangs decides they are in charge ?  Who keeps lakefront communities local commercial factories from polluting the available drinking water for entire populations. I am saying that with anarchy comes survival of the fittest .. maybe not the worst thing for a overpopulated planet .

What I am asking is howdoes a anarchial society protect the masses .. and that is a reasonable question in my book .

And for the record .. I have never in my life forced any one to do anything / taken money from  .. well there were a few verbal contracts about recreational substances made to me that I had to collect on back in the day .

So please stop accusing me of being the gov ... we are in the same boat and I am trying to find common ground ... I have paid my dues ... I have had my ass beat by Chicago's finest several times .... been pepper sprayed at protests and been saying no to cops trying to violate my civil rights as long as I can remember .... calling me the gov hurts .

Applying this to government: do you advocate for government that performs acts you would find morally reprehensible if you had to perform them yourself?  What would you personally wish to see done to people who want to opt-out of government and refuse to pay taxes?

No ... never ... I hate what has become "the gov" , and the Fed Gov does so much I find morally reprehensible ... I have done what I can to change things ... and am always willing to put my opinions on the line .. you would not believe how many times I have had to explain to friends and some family that it's ok to want socialized medicine ... it's just that they need to accept the fact they are now socialists .

What do I want for people who opt out ? I would personally wish they never get caught , and that enough of us were awake to the fact that we could in fact starve the beast ... my self .. I am a coward I guess .. I have been jailed .. have seen some awful shit in lockups and jails in Illinois .. spent 4 days in cook county lock up in "95 with out a phone call and eating once a day during a riot situation fighting for my life most of the time ...so I no longer have the balls so many of you in HN currently do  .. like I said to Lauren about her protesting those homes being stolen .. you people are ten feet tall in my eyes .

[Jacobus]

I'm just a guy who sometimes writes on the Internet.  I am not to be grouped with the folks in NH practicing civil disobedience or non-cooperation.  All I do is cheer from the sidelines (actually, from MA).

I apologize if my comments made you feel like you are not activist enough or grouped you with government supporters.  Your reply makes it clear that you are not such a supporter.