ClumsyMonkey.net

your own ghost wrote:obviously in a society with no government, other 'police forces' would be required. the difference is that these forces would be paid voluntarily and occupy themselves soley with protecting the rights of their clients, not violating them.

to replace courts and the law, arbiters enforced by the private police force would spring up.

ok who pays for these officers? a private owner right? well what happens when he runs out of money? if the public does not pay for the policing then the man in charge of the police will be unable to pay them which would mean the police would quit because they are unable to make a living. Otherwise people would be policing the town just because they feel like it, which technically would be using force since he/she is not an official poilice officer. Why should I have to listen to him?

Another scenario I was thinking about is since the individual pays for services directly rather than through a 3rd party, how would the officers know who paid for the services and who didn't? Do you ask everyone to show documentation if they need help? Wouldn't this take up far too much time and therefore would result in a lot of crooks getting away with crimes?

your own ghost wrote:the french revolution was people revolting against "the man". everybody hates him, he's an asshole. in anarchy, we kill the man. he's dead. he can't bother anybody anymore.

"the man" will always exist. Someone will have more power than another in every sector. There is no way in which every person can be equal in money, power and intelligence, and those who possess these 3 aspects will automatically rise to the top. It would become impossible for anything to be done since there would be chaos due to a lack of leadership at any level.
Let's use the policing example again. If someone does not pay for the officers the officers will not do their job since they will not be paid. Unless everyone has individual bodyguards it would not work. The man who pays the officers would be classifed as "the man" and as you just stated he would be killed off by the anarchy. Perfect, so you kill the man who's paying the people who prevent you from being killed. Makes sense to me.

and by the way please spell my name correctly... I hate it when my name is misspelled as it's J-Neli not Nielsen thanks.

the private police would be paid in user fees from the people who they protected. think of it as an insurance policy - crime insurance. You pay a premium and they respond if you're in danger.

you could choose to not pay the premium and protect yourself. that is an choice you have to make. personally, i think it's everybody's duty to look after themselves and that the idea of police is morally flawed. but obviously not everyone would feel that way, and capitalists would capitalize on the need for protection.

the man will not always exist. the man holds us down. by getting rid of him, and ending regulation and legislated theft, you end the man.

the police wouldn't be in place for anything other than to be a bodyguard because there would be no laws, therefore anyone could kill anyone and not be punished for it. And if they did take them to jail that would be using force.

nielson. wait. before we go any further, let's review some facts:

fact 1: you know nothing about anarchy
fact 2: i know plenty.

so, while we're doing this i'd appreciate it if you don't presume to tell me "how it would work". i'd really like to know where you get your information from, seeing as how it's not out of any anarchist book i've ever read.

ok who pays for these officers? a private owner right? well what happens when he runs out of money? if the public does not pay for the policing then the man in charge of the police will be unable to pay them which would mean the police would quit because they are unable to make a living. Otherwise people would be policing the town just because they feel like it, which technically would be using force since he/she is not an official poilice officer. Why should I have to listen to him?

these "officers" would not be financed by a "private owner" as you put it, but in the same fashion as every other money making company on earth: by the clients of the business.

if the company is mismanaged and fails to make a profit, it will fail, and another will replace it.

look at private security companies right now to see an example of what i am talking about.

why "should" you listen to private police? chances are if they're coming to look for you, you've done something morally wrong. why will you? for the same reason you listen to cops today: they have guns.

the man is the state. the man is a person who makes it impossible for people to suceed. the man is not "a rich person". without a government, you don't have the man.

frankly, anybody who resents rich people for being rich and feels they're owed something because they aren't rich is a leech who has no value to society anyway. fuck 'em. if they want to "rise against" the wealthy, we'll be glad to kill them.

uh.

your last sentance is a contradiction.

you are failing to grasp a number of my points. for starters, the laws we have in place do not stop me from buying a gun and then walking down the street and killing a random person for no reason.

secondly, the reason that i don't do that is not because i am afraid of being caught. only 1% of violent criminals in north america are caught and convicted, the other 99/100 go free. the reason i don't just shoot people is because i'm a rational being and i know that it's wrong.

finally, if you were reading my posts, you would have observed that i told Corey i'm no pacifist. i just believe in non-aggression. If somebody shoots another human for no reason, that's what we call aggressing against an indvidual. the one who did the murder is going to get a taste of his own.

the police wouldn't be in place for anything other than to be a bodyguard because there would be no laws, therefore anyone could kill anyone and not be punished for it. And if they did take them to jail that would be using force.

that's right, a bodyguard. now you're getting the idea. they'd protect us from people who attempt to violate our rights, nothing more. unlike todays police which are more of a pain in the ass then a bodyguard.

however, if you kill somebody, the agency that they were paying to protect them will come get you. since you iniated force against their client, it is now within their rights to act on his behalf and iniate it right back against you.

non [glow=white]AGRESSION[/glow] principle. we are not pacifists.

nielson. wait. before we go any further, let's review some facts:

fact 1: you know nothing about anarchy
fact 2: i know plenty.

so, while we're doing this i'd appreciate it if you don't presume to tell me "how it would work". i'd really like to know where you get your information from, seeing as how it's not out of any anarchist book i've ever read.

I'm merely doing what you're doing as well. Attempting to validate my argument, You don't see me telling you that you know nothing and that I know everything. Your immaturity is astounding. Explain to me where I've given uneducated and unvalidated points? Because as far as I can tell my argument is just as just as yours is.

You're right, I have never read any Anarchist books. I've read plenty of articles and books on polictics and thats what I'm basing my views on.


I'm wondering though would it not be a hassle for everyone to have to have personal bodyguards with them at all times? Every family would need a 24 hour bodyguard which would not be feasible. The cost would be astounding and most people would be unable to afford them. It would be the same as today where only the rich and famous can afford private security on a daily basis.
Your system would create a world of 2 wrongs make a right. He kills me so my bodyguard kills him. Even then what good would it be for the body guard to kill him anyways? It would make more sense for the man to simply buy off the guard and use him as his own security. So really this would initiate a mob rule in which the rich could kill whom they please and simply buy off whomever they want.

murder is wrong, self defense is not. that's not two wrongs making a right.

you don't need a 24/7 bodyguard. just buy a gun and learn to use it.

and if you've never read any anarchist books or studied the theory, how do you know how anarchy would turn out?

Explain to me where I've given uneducated and unvalidated points?... You're right, I have never read any Anarchist books

by your own admission you are uneducated about anarchy and yet you are still trying to tell me how it would fail. how do you know that? if i show you a complicated motor vehicle engine diagram, are you, with no knowledge of how engines work, going to be able to tell me if it would fail or not?

you have to understand something to be able to spot it's weaknesses. not only do you not understand anarchy but i'm starting to think you may not even understand me.

we don't have 24/7 security now, so what makes you think we'd need it without the government?

i don't think you understand, a private security company would act exactly as police do today, except less nosy and annoying and o yeah, they'd be paid voluntarily.

You guys plead a good case. There is one thing that doesn't sit well with me. You keep referring to "rights" in tenses of "violating rights" and individuals having said "rights". Where are these rights mandated and who determines whether or not they've been violoated? In anarchy, no one can justify anything being "wrong" or "right", and that includes murder.

well because we and other anarchists believe in absolute rights, we don't need a government to tell us what's right and wrong.

corey you make an excellent point. all though chris and i do believe in absolute rights, there's really no way for us to prove that absolute rights do exist. it's just what we believe.

that's one of the reasons i hate the term anarchy, because it implies that there is no system. we are advocating a system, but the difference between it and all others is that market anarchism/freedom/minarchism/voluntaryism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is that ours is a voluntary system that stems from the rational natural result of a community of uncoerced human souls.

private police and/or bodyguards? we'd be going back to old hick days...

let's face it people have their own personal objectives and would use this to their advantage. this has been done in the past. In reguards to the king ranch:

This bad ass named Richard King had a huge track of land down here in present day kingsville. but as you all know buisness types and "mero mero's" are greedy sons of bitches. see the guy was loaded and to maximize his profits, he decided to buy his own private police. as in 100 or so gunslingers. what he did was he found out who the owner of the land next to him was and mobilized his own personal army against this guy and eventually killed him. Mr. King himself would later go to the widows of these poor guys and buy the land off of her, ripping her off big fucking time. cause let's face it, back then men did the buisness back in those days and women didn't have a clue to what the land was worth. It's rumored that my great grandfater was one of those "private policemen", and there are literally thousands of suits against the King Ranch of these accusations.

That's a probability of what can happen when you privatize your police. an individual in its own mind has his/her own modivations that only pertain to themself. And they will use whatever assets or slack you'll allow or not allow, just as long as they get what they want.

but reno, man, i think you're missing the point a little

a) corrupt cops exist in demockracy or any government.

b) the private police/bodyguards wouldn't be above the law because there wouldn't be a law. if they commited a murder they'd be held just as accountable as the next group.

how do you hold someone accountable for murder when there is no law for murder? your right there are corrupt cops in our republic, but what they can do is nothing compared to the ultimate raising of an army for an individual's gain.

allow me to clear this up.

private police forces, in order to remain profitable, would have to outline what kind of activity they will respond to. this would create the "law" of sorts, in that when you sign up for the service, you get a clear description of what they will or will not allow.

obviously, more then one protection agency will not be able to survive, economically, in the same area. if a client of agency a attacks a client of agency b, this will lead to conflicts between the two. eventually, the larger agency will become dominant and take control of a particular region. this will allow for consistent application of the "law".

who are these people anyway

i'm going to make this alot clearer...Money Talks...Bullshit walks.

It doesn't matter what they outline in their own "laws" if someone with money demands that you do something against these laws and they show you enough money, they'll do whatever asked of them. that's the way it is now, and that won't change in your system. Right now Border patrol agents are being paid to look the other way by drug trafficers, and they're also getting a paycheck, medical benifits, and one kick ass pention from Uncle sam...life is good isn't it? Is he doing what's outlined in his laws and job duties? nope, but he's making alot more money doing that then just plain working.