Anarchists cannot answer the question that, if people are disposed
towards cool heads and rational discourse in personal disputes, why
doesn't this happen in reality?

I speak for me, not "anarchists". In any case, it happens all the time. It is, in fact, the usual way things work in reality when there are disputes among people. Do you not resolve your disputes that way? I do.

What Anarchists want is to opt out of a government's control of them.
Which ~really~ means, the ability to opt out of anyone else's judgment
of their use of force. Which ~really~ means their opting out of haveing
objective principles applied to their use of force

Your assertion is incorrect. As I wrote in the other thread: "government or not, just due to the rational nature of human beings, I expect my actions will be judged by others and I don't want or seek to avoid it at all. I couldn't avoid it--humans judge; that's exactly how we survive ain't it? Judgers is what we are."

And I already apply objective principles to my use of force; I don't need a government to do that for me.

Scott-
I've been all over having an objective standard from the start. This is still assuming context of an ideal minimal government, and that vigilante behavior - be it due to rash action or more thought out time-sensitive action - could (justly and rationally) be possible in certain circumstances.

Aaron

DeSalvo: "Anarcho-capitalism will turn lone thieves into gangs of thieves!"

Right. Not like the IRS, just for instance.

Anarcho-capitalism will turn lone thieves into gangs of thieves!

I stand by my analysis of your scenario. I don't think whether the robber is alone are with a few others makes alot of difference in the analysis.

Our apparent differences of opinion about the proportionality of response underscores the value of having an objective standard for this stuff.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Scott-
You changed my lone burglar into an armed gang, you try to hold them all at gunpoint and wait that half hour or so for the cops to arrive!

Trying to hold a criminal yourself for the cops, especially on their property, adds risk of harm from them, and also from the cops who arrive and see you as the one with the gun (this happens far too often now with cops who shoot someone for having a wallet, but even good, rational cops might be jumpy). I stand by the scenario.

Aaron

"In my estimation,..."

That's just darling, Lawyer-boy. What you don't have is a good reason why I should care one whit about what you think and why my politics should be forcibly conformed to yours. Do you understand? Not one reason.

"Say a neighbor has burglarized your house, you saw him leaving with the last armful of goods, and it's now at his house and he's waiting for his fence to arrive. Call the authorities, answer questions, etc. to jump through the necessary hoops and your belongings (and evidence) could well be gone by the time they can act - maybe traceable and retrievable, maybe not. Intervene now, take back your stuff, shoot the bastard burglar if he interferes, and prove your case later if you have to that your breaking and entering his house was justified. This isn't what you'd call emergency; it's relatively short-range but not 'in the moment', your life isn't in immediate danger, yet still it makes sense to act on knowledge you have that would take too long to impart to others. I expect if we thought more on this we could come up with longer-range cases too where time argues for action sooner."

This is exactly the sort of scenario where I think impartial 3rd parties SHOULD be involved, for alot of reasons.

The anarchists we have heard from seem clear that there are objective principles which guide man's action. So let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about such aprincipled anarchist is being robbed in your example.

Is it in keeping with principles that if you believe that someone breaks into your home and steals you stuff, your first recourse would be to go to their home with a gun, and if they "interfere" you "shoot the bastard?"

My position is that even in a land with laws, this happens, but there would be no disincentive at all to this conduct in a land without laws. In fact, the Chicago Bears' former useless running back Cedrick Benson, was arrested in college because he thought someone stole his television set, and, using violence on whim, he broke down someone's door and assaulted them, and, oops, no stolen TV set.

In my estimation, what you do in that situation is you tell him to identify himself and ask him just what the hell he thinks he is doing when "you saw him leaving with the last armful of goods." Depending on other factors, you could draw your handgun or not. With him in your sights, you call the police and they arrive 10-30 minutes later and arrest the fucker. They let you into his apartment and let you identify and take you stuff back. Using the camera he stole, you take pictures of your stuff sitting in a pile in his living room. You give the photos to the DA to assist in prosecution.

Then, people who are not furious and feel violated, judge what he did. No chance he is going to be shot for burglary. He gets to sit in a cage like an animal until trial and think about whether he wants to spend a few years in there.

The other way is goes down is--he and his buddies, knowing they are stealing, are packing and shoot you dead when they see you returning home from work. Or shoot you dead when you come to his house to inquire, as a rational free trader, what he thought he was doing in stealing from you. Or maybe you shoot back and hit an innocent, and the innocent's father now wants to kill you, and does not give a fiddler's fart about WHY you accidentally shot his kid, but just that you did.

Most police departments require their cops to qualify with their side arm and shotgun yearly. The robbers probably do not (note the notoriously BAD aim of gang bangers in Chicago--they always hit innocent kids and miss one another), and our rational free trader who works for a living might not get to the range as often as you might like. Better idea if force wielders are well trained. Keeps the collateral damage low.

Violence escalates and violence begets violence. Removing emotion from the equation also removes subjectivity and ensures a more probably just outcome than self-help gunplay.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

So that post of your WAS nonsensical ranting, as usual.

Nice work.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

You are dismissed

I wasn't talking to you and I don't "want" anything from you.

Robert-
"Granted, due process implies government,"

Not really, see the anarchist literature on courts, arbitration, appeals, etc. Tolerating vigilantes who can prove their case after the fact doesn't break this for anarchy either, since we're talking about exactly that now in the context of government.

"(1) Not only does that serve as a warning to others, but it also makes it clear that the punitive action was done for a rational reason. Warnings are useful in preventing repeat offenders."

I don't regard deterrence the proper goal of a justice system, but don't have a problem with it as a side effect. I'll agree with you on this point though - government or multiple enforcement agencies - since secret tribunals and evidence would (should) immediately breed suspicion.

"(2) If I might float a boat here: why would a rational man, living in a society (and therefore needing a quality reputation in order to help trade with others), would avoid exacting revenge on someone without public justification first?"

A couple possibilities:

1) Justified, yet emotional action. The vengeance-for-murder case I've been using fits this. The vigilante may be rashly putting himself at risk to achieve justice before proving his case to others, but is nonetheless still justified. (Yes, emotional rash people can kill people without proper justification too - but that's neither here nor there vs what is possible now)

2) Expediency. I assume even a perfectly rational, honest, objective-law abiding court system(s) would be slooow relative to a situation that only aggressor and victim would be aware of. This isn't a fault as being inefficient and lousy and something that could be improved (beyond a point), but a natural consequence of you having knowledge/evidence and it simply taking time to contact others, explain/prove, etc. before acting. Rational people already recognize this in the moment (in emergency situations) - a person can and should act to defend themselves rather than waiting for police to arrive. Extend this - if a victim *knows* (not just an unjustified hunch, etc. that obviously lead to crime of its own) someone has wronged them and can prove it, there can still be reasonable cases to act on this before taking the time to prove it to others.

Say a neighbor has burglarized your house, you saw him leaving with the last armful of goods, and it's now at his house and he's waiting for his fence to arrive. Call the authorities, answer questions, etc. to jump through the necessary hoops and your belongings (and evidence) could well be gone by the time they can act - maybe traceable and retrievable, maybe not. Intervene now, take back your stuff, shoot the bastard burglar if he interferes, and prove your case later if you have to that your breaking and entering his house was justified. This isn't what you'd call emergency; it's relatively short-range but not 'in the moment', your life isn't in immediate danger, yet still it makes sense to act on knowledge you have that would take too long to impart to others. I expect if we thought more on this we could come up with longer-range cases too where time argues for action sooner.

Aaron

Then please clarify what you mean by the following--I do not understand what you are talking about, who you are referring to. If you do, I will define "violence based on whim" for you.

"Look: he has no way of knowing that "objective standard" gag, which is nonsense.

And that is his problem. At bottom, this man is a snooping busybody who just can't stand the idea of minding his own business."

Do you mean your judge has no way of knowing that objective standard gag?

Or I have no way of knowing that objective standard gag?

Or if you do not feel like clarifying, then don't. Your call.

If you do not clarify, it might be taken by some as an unwillingness on your part to post clearly, state your position clearly, and defend it clearly. I mention this because there is quite alot of evidence already that your puzzling post is sort of nonsensical by design rather than negligence.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"...all because of government?"

Those are your words, DeSalvo. Not mine.

"In brief: when you keep telling people that they're rotten and require control, they will sooner or later begin to believe you and act like it."

I think that this conclusion is a monumental error and ignores what we know and what we have seen of man--or I should say, some men.

Men's egos, their baser desires, their failure to reason, their ignorance, their first resort to violence, the things they do to one another--all because of government? Without government, they become rtional free-traders?

I do not buy it.

More than just violent matted-bearded throwbacks, we also see more sophisticated thieves and murderers--purveyors of fraud and force whether you are buying or not.

I agree that the first person who cheats in a business deal in ham handed fashion will be gunned down by the first anarchist he cheats. No question. It will be a Nietzschean annihilation for certain. After all, Nietzsche has insinuated that it should happen, so it should. This is just not going to happen to the smarter and richer and more powerful and therefore, more dangerous, "rational free traders."

It will be a Nietzschean annihilation. But it will not be justice. It will not be based on objective standards, an objective process, an objectively proportional punishment.

Should not be a surprise, since Nietzsche believed in the "superman" who exists above the morals which bound normal men. A troubling source for an anarchist to cite when assuring us that 99% of people in anarchy will be rational free traders. Will the 1% then be "supermen," free to live by the credo "might makes right?"?

What of all the innocent victims of these matted beard throwbacks until they are wiped out?

Burning witches and old Western shootouts also fit these criteria as evidence of objective-standard-less versions of justice that had nothing at all to do with government.

99% of gang members in the city I live in are not the benevolent, rational fair traders one would want to meet should anarchy obtain.

The violence they do to me would be none of anyone else's concern. But I have only one life, and there is no afterlife.

I do not have enough faith in my fellow man that they are going to become rational free traders when laws are abolished. I call it faith, because that is what it takes because there zero evidence that it will happen and substantial evidence that the worst will.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

DeSalvo: "The problem, of course, is that in Billy's example, the old judge's version of justice going on in that barn is not being seen, not being reviewed for procedural or substantive compliance with ANY objective standard."

Can anyone see the obvious defect in that?

Look: he has no way of knowing that "objective standard" gag, which is nonsense.

And that is his problem. At bottom, this man is a snooping busybody who just can't stand the idea of minding his own business.

"Gaining a solid reputation, or at least an honorable veneer, so that others leave you alone to do violence based upon whim?"

Did everybody see him try to sneak that "whim" thing into this?

Define that, DeSalvo. I dare you.

DeSalvo: "And that's just not a good enough answer."

And your answers about why I should be subject to your government are not good enough for me.

Robert: "Unfortunately the other 1% are gifted at creating a level of havoc that belies their numbers."

A reading:

"To the average American or Englishman the very name of anarchy causes a shudder, because it invariably conjures up a picture of a land terrorized by low-browed assassins with matted beards, carrying bombs in one hand and mugs of beer in the other. But as a matter of fact, there is no reason whatever to believe that, if all laws were abolished tomorrow, such swine would survive the day. They are incompetents under our present paternalism and they would be incompetents under dionysian anarchy. The only difference between the two states is that the former, by its laws, protects men of this sort, whereas the latter would work to their speedy annihilation."

(H. L. Mencken, "Friedrich Nietzsche", 1913, Part II, ch. X, "Government", pp. 196-197)

Now, in that paragraph, he goes on to things that would require my qualification, at least. All that above, however, makes eminently good sense to me. And; I should think that it would to Objectivists, as well, for all kinds of reasons both fundamental and consequential.

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we should stop tinkering with the formula of government and toss it out completely."

One good reason is because it's bloody killing people in all kinds of ways right up actual murder, and all in the name of "justice". These contradictions are becoming evident to even the most stupid on the street, whose ethics are among the most subject to all the corrosion of something like that. The end effect must naturally be a rejection of "law & order" in proportion to its application.

In brief: when you keep telling people that they're rotten and require control, they will sooner or later begin to believe you and act like it.

"In my intemperate moments, I've often opined that lawmakers should be stood on a stool with their necks in a noose whenever they propose a new law. And at the end of the address, any voter who dislikes the law has the right to walk up and kick the stool from under the prick..."

Great idea. I am all for it.

Yes, I get it, no one likes my profane tirades. Neither do I.

There was also mention of the Platonic "who shall guard the guardians" and it is an issue if government is considered. But I think this consideration is still relevant in anarchy, with every man being a guardian with respect to the use of force, and the answer to the rhetorical question being "No one." And that's just not a good enough answer.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Exactly. I'm no where near becoming an anarchist. But in between the cuss words there has been the odd point mentioned that has caused me to think harder about the reasons why I think governments are necessary. And that can only be a good thing.

I think I recall someone once opining that were all men angelic then there would be no need of law. But seeing as that isn't the case one is required. I agree with Billy (where ever he said this) that 99% of the people I meet are excellent at heart. Some are more curmudgeonly or eccentric than others, but that's their prerogative. Unfortunately the other 1% are gifted at creating a level of havoc that belies their numbers.

Dealing with these people in a manner that doesn't compromise my own values - in terms of justice and enjoyment of life - is a problem that is not beyond the wit of man to solve. And I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we should stop tinkering with the formula of government and toss it out completely.

On the other hand, doing away with it would solve the problem of funding it in a non-coercive manner...

It would also do away with the irritating tendency of politicians to auction away our freedoms in order to feather their own nests. Constitutional canons are only a partial answer to this. Yes, eternal vigilance was supposed to be the other, but it's damned hard work being vigilant for eternity. And, ironically, that will be the case whether you have a government or not.

In my intemperate moments, I've often opined that lawmakers should be stood on a stool with their necks in a noose whenever they propose a new law. And at the end of the address, any voter who dislikes the law has the right to walk up and kick the stool from under the prick...

"Granted, due process implies government, but the idea should be a sound one even for anarchists: One of the reasons you give a criminal a trial is because justice, to be done, must be seen to be done."

Due process is important for a number of reasons, some of which you bring up, but none of which are probable or maybe even possible without government. I say MAYBE possible because private agencies could set up rules, but anyone can opt out or never opt in in the first place, so it is rather meaningless, just not utterly impossible, I suppose, without government.

The problem, of course, is that in Billy's example, the old judge's version of justice going on in that barn is not being seen, not being reviewed for procedural or substantive compliance with ANY objective standard. His neighbors do not bat an eye, but they should. Gaining a solid reputation, or at least an honorable veneer, so that others leave you alone to do violence based upon whim? Am I the only one with a problem with that?

"(1) Not only does that serve as a warning to others, but it also makes it clear that the punitive action was done for a rational reason. Warnings are useful in preventing repeat offenders."

True. It is unclear how anyone would be warned of anything with no established laws, beyond the laws of common sense, which vary widely.

"(2) If I might float a boat here: why would a rational man, living in a society (and therefore needing a quality reputation in order to help trade with others), would avoid exacting revenge on someone without public justification first?"

Well, first, if his neighbors all owed him money, for example. Or if he spent time building a veneer of honor or had done favors for his neighbors, they'd certainly be less inclined to become involved. All subjective factors--the same ones which prevent these sort from sitting on a jury if there is government.

He's carved himself a nice little niche in which to use whim as his unreviewed, secret standard for violence. Even if he uses objective standards the first dozen times he uses violence, that doesn't matter to the 13th, whim violence recipient. And let's face it--dead men tell no tales, do they? In a fit of conscience, a nieghbor can ask what happened. What story you think is gonna be told?

When I first got out of law school, I worked at a small law firm and started taking injury cases to trial right away. harrowing experience for a new lawyer. Another young lawyer worked for the commercial litigation partner. They had about 4 medium sized companies as clients. Construction trades, mostly. These guys were hired to delay and obfuscate and defeat valid claims for payment for work done. And sue others for whom these companies did work and were not paid. Four companies, doing a hell of a lot of business. Almost none of their bills were ever paid on time, they never offered to pay the amount they contracted for. They were treated the same way by businesss doing work for them.

11 years later, same partner, different associate, same companies, bigger, doing more business, doing business the same way. I have since learned that this dishonorable stupidity is the "way it is done."

I take my reputation very seriously and behave with scrupulous honesty in my profession and life. Some others do not.

My point is that while reputation is important, when tempers are running hot, consideration of reputation takes a back seat, shared with due process and objective standards. Lots of people ignore their reputations and have plenty of business.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"in a just government, are you now saying a vigilante with solid evidence may be stupid and taking risks (e.g. of a busybody like me seeing him shoot someone and without the context of his evidence rationally assuming he's a threat and shooting him), but would not be criminal for doing so?"

I think we are close whether discussing this in the context of a just government or our current government/laws. It is moral for the assailed to protect himself and his property. It is ILLEGAL to shoot anyone or inflict violence on anyone, PERIOD. You escape legal culpability for your justified retaliatory force by showing it was justified (i.e., you life and/or property was at risk). I'd you do not, then your retaliatory use of force is deemed illegal. For example, if someone shot at you, and 6 hours later, you got your gun and friends together and droe over to the guy's house and shot at him, it would be hard to argue that your immediate safety was threatened due to the time lapse and that fact that you sought him out.

There was just a case in Texas where a neighbor was watching thieves clear out his neighbor's house. He asked them what they were doing and hey did not id themselves. He called the police and he police told him to do nothing. He got his gun and scared them off. I do not remember whether he shot them. This stretches the concept of an immediate threat in some eyes, but he was NOT convicted for unlawful use of a firearm.

Thanks for the reading suggestions, I will add them to the queue. Most of my reading has been on anarcho-capitalism and early Childs, Jr.

Rothbard's approach as you describe definitely sounds flawed for the reasons you cite.

One of my big points about objective principles needing to guide justice is that the subjectivism of the putative aggressor and victim will trump their objectivity, at least. That is a reason why I advocate a government in this area, though in few others.

Except the government SHOULD be empowered to grant us the right to plant begonias. [Shout out to my good friend, Mr. Crank-Pants].

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Robert: "(2) If I might float a boat here: why would a rational man, living in a society (and therefore needing a quality reputation in order to help trade with others), would avoid exacting revenge on someone without public justification first?"

There might be all kinds of reasons for that. He might do it precisely because of his reputation. Around where I live, there is an old and prosperous farmer who sat on a local village court for over forty years and established an impeccable reputation for justice. He's retired now. If he caught a perp in his barn and then summarily had his way with that person, nobody within a hundred miles would bat an eye.

Note that forty years' work on a village court would not be necessary to something like that. There are lots of people just like him around here, identifiable in the long and consistently honorable conduct of their private lives.

And I hasten to add that -- as always -- I reserve the absolute right to not be involved in any of it.

I always considered the problem with vigilantes to have more to do with denying a person a right to due process. Usurping the rule of law being a greater crime because it usurps government monopoly the use of retaliatory force.

Granted, due process implies government, but the idea should be a sound one even for anarchists: One of the reasons you give a criminal a trial is because justice, to be done, must be seen to be done.

(1) Not only does that serve as a warning to others, but it also makes it clear that the punitive action was done for a rational reason. Warnings are useful in preventing repeat offenders.

(2) If I might float a boat here: why would a rational man, living in a society (and therefore needing a quality reputation in order to help trade with others), would avoid exacting revenge on someone without public justification first?

Scott-
I've not had near the time I did a few days ago, so have barely kept up reading these threads let alone responding. I wanted to get back to you on your last post to me here though.

"In the context of a government, with a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, that certainly holds. Even with the monopoly, individuals have the right to use retaliatory force to defend themselves."

I think that's an agreement with me, and an important one to keep government from having collective power denied to individuals. Just to clarify, in a just government, are you now saying a vigilante with solid evidence may be stupid and taking risks (e.g. of a busybody like me seeing him shoot someone and without the context of his evidence rationally assuming he's a threat and shooting him), but would not be criminal for doing so?

"I do not know what anarchist scholars have to say about that, but it would be interesting to know."

I've read various types of anarchist writing on crime and justice, and though I'll ignore utilitarians or contractualists (i.e. there is no right or wrong outside the bounds of an explicit contract) here, I'd recommend checking out anarchists who write assuming objective (though not necessarily grounded in Objectivism) principles:

I referred to George H. Smith in the other thread as having valuable ideas in 'Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies'. He addresses situations of multiple defense/enforcement agencies, and how being able to prove the rightness of your cause by objective law would still be a key check on individual vigilantism - or with enforcement agencies, 'vigilantism by proxy'.

The most thorough author concerning this I've seen is Murray Rothbard in 'Ethics of Liberty', and in a less systematic manner, in 'For a New Liberty'. Most related to what you're discussing, he deals a lot with the proper role of criminal justice, a focus on the victim instead of society, and proper proportionality. To sum up (probably oversimply) his conclusions on retaliation, punishment could not be of a different nature than the crime; e.g. capital punishment would only be appropriate for murder. The victim would be the proper one to impose punishment, though could choose to assign it to a third party. And punishment should exceed the damage done, though be limited in proportion to it - very roughly 'two eyes for an eye'. Also going all the way on not having any 'special rights' for government police/courts - or private ones - Rothbard holds that detaining, incarcerating, etc. a suspect requires that those doing so be criminally responsible if they are wrong and held an innocent man.

I have serious disagreements with especially Rothbard in particular areas - e.g. not taking context of knowledge and intent into account on criminal investigations, a murder victim's next-of-kin being the only ones who could choose to punish a murderer. However, in general I found them extremely valuable for even tackling hard ideas (and, often, being right) of ethics and law that Rand and most other Objectivists don't. Even if you never agree with the idea that some of the police/courts/defense type functions of government could ever be privatized, they still make you think about and revise your thoughts on hard questions of justice that are relevant regardless.

Aaron

"The real protection against any form of tyranny (including democracy) is the principle of natural inalienable rights and objective laws, based on this principle."

I keep seeing people around here going on about a "sense of life".

At least I have one, ladies and gentlemen.

I do not live delusions.

No, I don't believe in magic, and, you are right, it could happen here. Democracy as such is not iron-clad defense against it. Democracy simply means rule of mob. The real protection against any form of tyranny (including democracy) is the principle of natural inalienable rights and objective laws, based on this principle. The function of State is to uphold and to implement these laws-exactly what anarchistic society cannot do. That why Nestor Makhno failed. In absence of objective laws he had to make his own, subjective laws and, since he hadn’t had any consent of governed, he had to support his policy with brutal force. So much for anarchistic dream.

You bet, Leonid.

"Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang us all."

If you think that it couldn't possibly happen here, then you believe in magic.

"It quite obvious that anarchist society could be build on only one principle 'might is right'".

Uh-huh. It's a damned good thing that democracy doesn't work that way.

"Nestor Mahkno would have made a terrific New York City alderman in this day and age."

By summary executions,Billy, and few pogroms?

What stupid rubbish.

I have put my whole life on the line for the principle of private property.

Nestor Mahkno would have made a terrific New York City alderman in this day and age.

The only attemt in history to establish anarchist society had been implemented by Nestor Makhno in Ukraine. As you can see such a society was far away from anarchistic dream. It was based on brutal force (summary executions of dissendents) "From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists claimed to have established an anarchist society run by the peasants and workers in what they controlled of Ukraine. It was located approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye (then known as Alexandrovsk), and Dnepropetrovsk (formerly Ekaterinoslav). According to Makhno, "The agricultural most part of these villages was composed of peasants, someone understood at the same time peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of his members. All, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... Working program was established in meetings where all participated. They knew then exactly what they had to make." (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine). According to the leaders of the RIAU, society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which lead Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education was organised on Francesc Ferrer's principles, and the economy was based upon free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crop and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin. The Makhnoists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets"[1] and opposed the central government, which was elected by the soviets. Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions" and called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[1] In practice, the Makhnoists formed a system of government similar to a republic over the area they controlled, Makhno used forced conscription and summary executions though unlike the Bolsheviks the Makhnoists rarely used forced conscription and summary executions and most Makhnoist "militiamen" enlisted voluntarily. ([2], 121),"( Wikipedia)
Eventualy, Nestor Makhno turned out to be a dictator.It quite obvious that anarchist society could be build on only one principle " might is right"

DeSalvo: "I do not know what anarchist scholars have to say about that,..."

That's astonishing and completely incredible. After all, you never flinch at telling all the nice 'netters what I think without ever thinking about it or even knowing what you're talking about.

No problem, Aaron. Interesting problem to think through.

In the context of a government, with a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, that certainly holds. Even with the monopoly, individuals have the right to use retaliatory force to defend themselves. You aren't defending your immediately safety by seeking out revenge. Once your immediate safety is not threatened, then the criminal and civil justice system go about removing subjective anger and desire for revenge from the equation, apply objective principles and rules, and come out with an outcomes, it is planned, will be fair to both sides. "Fair" does not mena desirable--it may mean hanging the aggressor.

But in anarchy, who is to say what initiation of force versus retaliatory force means? In anarchy, whoever is the stronger decides the meaning of words, or whether any questions or analysis goes on at all. In anarchy, objective principles still exist, whether anyone lives by them or acknowledges that they are the only proper guide to man's actions. In this context, you are probably correct--if someone hurts you, you have a never ending right to hurt them right back however you choose. This does not seem to be guided by any principle more specific that your right to your life.

I do not know what anarchist scholars have to say about that, but it would be interesting to know.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Scott-
Thanks for hitting the scenario straight on.

"In my estimation, both Bob and Allen are guilty of murder (initiation of force resulting in death), based on what you have given me."

I definitely don't agree, and think the reason has to lie in the underlying premise:

"No one has the right to initiate violence. That's not the whole story, though, because unless your immediate interests are threatened, the delayed "retaliation" for someone who killed your family is NOT retaliatory force. It is revenge, it is the initiation of force."

1) Why? Why is 'delayed retaliation' (proportionally and against a proven aggressor) to be considered an initiation of force?
2) If it is, why not apply the standard universally - i.e. delayed retaliation by a collective in the form of fines, incarceration or execution would also be an initiation of force?

Aaron

"I bet, if you are being honest, you could deny that the Government or Justice System has ever done something right?"

Surely, it must have made a train run on time, somewhere.

"And in a surprise move, which passes irrevocably on the anarchist's INTEGRITY, he offers to meet and buy a drink for a person who is permanently in "THE CLUB" of the anarchists hatred and disdain. An accused Socialist, Statist, etc., etc."

I told you what the qualification was, too, you flat-headed piece of shit. If there ever comes a day when you're not that anymore, I could take an interest in welcoming you as a human being.

Olivia: "...but you Sir, don't get to hammer so hard and then be fragile 'cause you're suddenly on the verge of a nosebleed."

Excuse me, woman, but you haven't seen "hammer[ing]" yet. There is nothing collective about any of this. I've been nothing but sweet to you but you can have it differently if you want it. You can't have it differently even if you don't want it by acting stupid like you did in that line above.

"Tribes and War-lords without any objective standard, well predate any form of government, in fact were a large part of why government became desirable."

Cite that. Thank you.

"But it is this ditching of the concept of small, limited government charged with upholding objective laws...

They're not and that is impossible, so get it out of your head. And even if you cannot do that, I can and the very last thing you must understand -- if you can grasp none of the rest of it -- is that you have no right in the world -- none -- to force me into your arrangements. And if you think differently and would like to try it, then the only recourse you and those who think like you will ever have will be to get up off your asses, get your war on, and come get some from free people.

Do you understand?

I'll do anything I can to help you understand. Here is something that I know, however: nobody can make anyone else think. You're the one responsible for that, and I can't help with it.

" - a government of laws not of men - so to speak..."

"So to speak..." There is a reason why you did that, Olivia. That's because it's fucking bullshit that cannot stand the weight of plain English. When you think it through, it's always a law of men, posing, so that stupid people will endorse it.

Go read everything else I wrote and see what you think.

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. (i.e. crypto-anarchism)

It seems to me that the Crypto-Anarcists logic is the following:

In a given context,

Some men are rational
Some men are irrational

Therefore,
A Government made up of many men must be irrational

Therefore,
Only indivdual men can be rational

Scott's logic (as interpreted by the Crypto-Anarchists)

In a given context,

Some men are rational
Some men are irrational

Therefore,
A Government made up of many men can collectively be more rational than an irrational man

Therefore,
Only a Government can be more rational, than an irrational man

But the mistake of the Crypto-Anarchists is the following:

Scott is not talking about the institution of Government per se, but the institution of an objective standard - as laid out in the US constitution (for example).

The purpose of the Government is only to administer the Justice system, not to dictate it.

I know the Crypto-Anarchists will sneer at me and say, 'well look at your fucked up Justice system/ Government - is that what you want?'

In the absence of a better alternative, yes I do.

I bet, if you are being honest, you could deny that the Government or Justice System has ever done something right?

Anymore than I could deny that a lone individual seeking justice in the absence of the Government or Justice System has ever done anything right.

the anarchist's typical strategy rears its ugly head--change the subject, ignore the evidence, insult.

Reasoned discourse? Honest? Sensical?

Reprehensible but expected.

And in a surprise move, which passes irrevocably on the anarchist's INTEGRITY, he offers to meet and buy a drink for a person who is permanently in "THE CLUB" of the anarchists hatred and disdain. An accused Socialist, Statist, etc., etc.

If the anarchist has the courage to stand behind what he says and behind his accusations, WHY would he ever want to have a drink, much less BUY a drink, for such a sub-human creature?

The answer is that nothing that comes out of the anarchist's mouth or from fingertips on keyboard can be taken as an honestly held conviction; is true; or is meant seriously.

Seeking an enabler to assist him in destroying the one virtue he has not already destroyed in public view on SOLO (integrity), he will find no takers.

Ideas are as serious as life and death, not mere baubles or playthings for bored anarchists.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Stop that, Olivia. I've been taking you personally seriously here, and now I have to point out something unpleasant about that fucking asshole here who I could tag to you if I didn't have my head on straight

{cold stare around the room}

As you would say Billy. I love that one, but you Sir, don't get to hammer so hard and then be fragile 'cause you're suddenly on the verge of a nosebleed.

{sigh} Government has one hell of a lot longer history than them, if that's the extent of your ability to analyze this stuff. In the short time I've seen you here, I've always thought better of you.

You're wrong about this point. Mafias, Gangs, Tribes and War-lords without any objective standard, well predate any form of government, in fact were a large part of why government became desirable.

How you think of me has little importance to me, though I do not mean for that to sound unduly ungracious.

To a large extent, I can understand withdrawing from government processes and the people (excuse the collective term) which support and create them. Given the massive and numerous abuses that governments inflict on its citizens, it seems like a rational and desirable option to turn one's back on it altogether. But it is this ditching of the concept of small, limited government charged with upholding objective laws - a government of laws not of men - so to speak, that I can't understand your adamance to reject.

I don't get how a private third party in an agency, with an interest in the dispute, can be *more* of an objective arbitrator than one who has no interest at a personal level (other than earning a living and a desire to see right be done).

If you want to answer, just hit me with the principle, I'm not asking (at least here) for the concretes unless they're pertinent.

If you've said all this before in some of the other posts I apologize, I have not read them all today.

DeSalvo: "The problem with some anarchists is that it is hard to take their philosophy seriously when they display disdain for others almost universally, wrongfully besmirch others, and act without integrity or with a sense of fair play."

It has been said of me that I am cruel but invariably fair. I can live with the former when I'm at my most demanding, but the latter is the truth in every case.

"...smear collective..."

Shut the fuck up, you sniveling bastard. If you can ever stand yourself up like a man, I might blow through Chicago and buy you a drink.

...is that it is hard to take their philosophy seriously when they display disdain for others almost universally, wrongfully besmirch others, and act without integrity or with a sense of fair play. SImply many of them cannot fight their own fights, as one might expect a professed individualist to do. Anarchists who behave this way do more harm to their ideas than their egos will often allow them to acknowledge.

These same anarchists want doubters of their political philosophy to believe that even non-individualist persons and groups of people will somehow act benevolently when the anarchists themselves do not.

For all their talk of individualism and respect for objective principles, anarchism is fundamentally SUBJECTIVE in the anarchist attempt to avoid objective principles being applied to them. Their cowardly and dishonest conduct in assembling as a smear, swear, lie collective is transparent in its evil, and is compounded by their refusal to admit that such is precisely what had happened.

If an anarchist cannot even admit to his cowardice and collectivist behavior in creating a smear collective, what other facts is he hiding? What other facts is he evading?

How can anything he says be given any weight whatsoever?

Character counts.

Kyle Bennett - SOLO member 2 days, 11 hours, anarchist and member of the smear collective.

ghostsniper - SOLO member 3 days, anarchist and member of the smear collective.

Mike Schneider - SOLOist 3 days, anarchist and member of the smear collective.

These are just the SOLOists who joined specifically and recently to participate in the smear attempt on the Sarah Palin thread. There are at least two other members who have been no more than lurkers for a year or two until their collective was formed.

An anarchist called his banners, sensing the very real risk of being exposed as a posturing moron with nothing more substantive to add to a discussion than a one liner and palpabale dislike of and disdain for all other human beings, the anarchists arrived, acting, speaking as one, in a lock step Stalin would be proud of.

Employing tactics not to uncover truth but to obfuscate it.

These are individualists interested in truth? These are men who accuse, lie, besmirch, mock, with no evidence, no proof.

These are the men you are to trust (if they have their way) with no objective standards to measure their conduct against, no means to review their conduct, no enforcement or punishment of their conduct.

Anarchists, who have shown they have no honor, want the honor system.

Of course they do. Of course the do.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"Do Billy’s Boys believe..."

Stop that, Olivia. I've been taking you personally seriously here, and now I have to point out something unpleasant about that fucking asshole here who I could tag to you if I didn't have my head on straight:

Somewhere back nearer the beginning of this, that creep prissed his skirts up and moaned something about my "posse".

There is no such thing and there never has been.

I understand the facility of referring to people grouped roughly in valid conceptual circumscriptions, but that sort of thing will not do. Do you understand?

Now, then, to your question and speaking only for myself, which is my only authority: it verges on the outrageous that you would ask me a question like that.

Yes. Of course I do. I'm not some kind of imbecile who floated in here on the whim of a book cover in some mouldy attic of a store.

"Throughout history, private agencies without an objective legal standard have been set up to ensure protection of private interests many times ~ it’s called the Mafia."

{sigh} Government has one hell of a lot longer history than them, if that's the extent of your ability to analyze this stuff. In the short time I've seen you here, I've always thought better of you.

We can’t get away from the fact that so long as men choose to live side by side, we need a social system based on objective laws. This, the role of politics, is by necessity a full time pursuit. Do Billy’s Boys believe that politics is a legitimate and necessary branch of philosophy?

Throughout history, private agencies without an objective legal standard have been set up to ensure protection of private interests many times ~ it’s called the Mafia.

It is also instructive that when formulating the fictional world of Galt’s Gulch, Rand saw fit to have a Judge Narragansett within it, even though the men inhabiting the Gulch were fully rational.

DeSalvo: "Allen walks away, having killed Bob, just the same, whether it was a drug induced vision or rock solid evidence which motivated him.".

Did everyone notice that DeSalvo completely ommitted Aaron's specifically stated context containing the element of Bob's guilt? Quote: "Allen presents (either immediately, or in some court system later, I don't consider that key to the scenario) the evidence condemning Bob, making it clear that Bob had in fact committed murder and forfeited his right to life." DeSalvo has just pulled that "drug induced vision" gag out of thin-air, right in front of your eyes.

You saw that, right?

He calls it "murder" because he or his designees didn't get to approve the matter on the facts, which he can't even state for you properly anyway.

"Even if a lynch mob gets together, what happens if it is a matter of mistaken identity and they seize the wrong newcomer to their town?"

Don't look now, Lawyer-boy, but there are all kinds of actually innocent people in the prisons -- not to mention the colossal "lynch mob" in action through legislation in every corner of the culture. With advances in DNA over the past ten years or so, overturned wrongful convictions are a going concern these days.

How anyone could hold such a losing investment is beyond me, unless they were a lawyer, of course. That would explain the whole thing.

Hope you do not mind I am answering your question here, Aaron.

"So (if most people agreed on Objectivist style ethical principles), I'll try to get at what I'm asking concerning government, individuals, and retaliatory force with the following scenario:

- Assume a non-coercively funded minarchist government.
- Bob murders Allen's family.
- Allen, not present at the time but having evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Bob did it, hunts Bob down and kills him.
- Others witness Allen killing Bob, and - lacking context only Allen has at the time - reasonably assume Allen is an aggressor, a murderer.
- However, Allen presents (either immediately, or in some court system later, I don't consider that key to the scenario) the evidence condemning Bob, making it clear that Bob had in fact committed murder and forfeited his right to life.

So given this scenario, is Allen guilty of anything? Would your ideal government punish him?

If government has a 'monopoly on retaliatory force' it seems he would be. But what could possibly be the crime? I see this situation as undoubtedly vigilantism, yet absolutely justified. The only issue I see is that Allen was pretty reckless and stupid concerning possibility of third party witnesses taking action against him given their context of knowledge, but this doesn't seem an issue after the fact, or somehow a crime."

******************************************************

Wow, that's a tall order.

No one has the right to initiate violence. That's not the whole story, though, because unless your immediate interests are threatened, the delayed "retaliation" for someone who killed your family is NOT retaliatory force. It is revenge, it is the initiation of force.

In my estimation, both Bob and Allen are guilty of murder (initiation of force resulting in death), based on what you have given me.

In a minimally-invasive government such as what Ayn Rand advocates, the State would arrest Bob before Allen exacts his revenge. Or if not, the State arrests Allen for murdering Bob.

What happens next is very important: a carefully-formulated process devised to prevent wrongful conviction and punishment of a person who is not guilty. Specialized rules and procedures are followed, and the facts are judged by a Judge and/or Jury against objective standards which apply to the context of murder, and based on objective principles. Whether it is Bob or Allen on trial, the same standards apply.

What happens in an anarchy is: Bob kills Allen's family. Nothing happens.

Allen decides to act against Bob. It doesn't matter whether Bob is acting based on direct evidence that Bob killed Allen's family, circumstantial evidence, no evidence, or tea leaves. No one is ever going to examine or judge Bob's or Allen's conduct anyway.

Allen kills Bob. Unless Bob's family or posse or gang retaliates, the issue is closed. Whether Allen was justified or not DOES NOT MATTER in an anarchy, because:

(1) each individual acts based on whatever premises, principles or standards (or lack thereof) they come along with;
(2) there is no requirement that any discussion, negotiation, reasoning, or anything take place, just stright to the violence;
(3) there is no agency, no government to review Allen's action, and even if there were;
(4) there are no established objective standards by which Allen's conduct, his "rightness" or "wrongness" in killing Bob could be judged; and
(5) anarchists do not hold that anyone has the right to judge anyone else on the use of force, whether government or individual.

Allen walks away, having killed Bob, just the same, whether it was a drug induced vision or rock solid evidence which motivated him. Such is the nature of justice in Anarchy: None.

I ask you, is this freedom? Can man live qua man in such circumstances? Of course not, because for every 1000 free taders, you just need one unprincipled thug with a talent for violence.

There will be no crime to accuse him of, becasue there is no crime--crime requires laws, and laws require consensus and anarchists do not want to be bound by what other people agree to. There will be no police to arrest him. There will be no objective standard to judge his conduct against, no trial where his innocence will be presumed and his guilty must be proven by any particular standard, and no enforcement nor even a means to determine or pronounce a punishment.

Even if a lynch mob gets together, what happens if it is a matter of mistaken identity and they seize the wrong newcomer to their town? A lynch mob does not have any procedural protections to protect the innocent. There is no procedure to a lynch mob's determination of guilty. It is as simple as "He looks guilty to me..." The standard for the use of violence against the accused is the whim of the moment. The proportionality of punishment is like not to even be considered.

Nor will the actions of lynch mob be judged, except by the poor guys' family, who may, or may not, have the funds to hire a force agency to seek justice.

But when it is the lynch mob's ass on the line, are they going to AGREE to be tried in a non-government trial if there is ANY chance that they will be convicted? Of course not.

The parties in dispute will each push SUBJECTIVE principles, not founded in rationality, but based upon the outcome they each want. Any trial would be a farce and it is back to another gunfight or lynch mob, and so it goes.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Cite that, DeSalvo.

"I see you, DeSalvo, every move, every step of the way."

Good. Watch, listen, and learn, and there may be hope for you yet, old boy.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Kind of you to say so.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"Anarchists do not believe that anyone has the right to use force against them, and especially not to punish them for whatever they happen to be doing."

I guess I should have clarified that [since anarchists claim only to act based upon rationality and valid moral principles], they do not believe anyone has the right to use force against them, and especially not to punish them for whatever they happen to be doing [since they believe in no review of their actions by anyone, and no enforcement of valid principles against them].

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"If your 'official' anarchists ruled everybody else, that is, took away their guns, wouldn't they just be a de facto government?"

For god's sake.

Is it really too much around here to expect that people would understand their subject before addressing it?

DeSalvo: "Funny you mention that, Billy. Because in your Anarcho-capitalist utopia, if someone DID beat their wife and fuck their kids, there would be zero consequences, wouldn't there?"

Only a fool like you would take that bet.

Pay attention, Scott: do you see these --

"...wouldn't there?"

"...right?"

"...don't you?"

I am not going to respect your arranged premises. That's why I repsonded here in my first post as I did.

There's an old story about Lyndon Johnson. During a hotly contested race early in his career, he was brainstorming an idea to let on that his opponent had carnal knowledge of barnyard animals. His staff were aghast. "Lyndon!" one cried, "we can't get away with calling him a pig-fucker!"

"Maybe not," he said, "but we can sure as hell make the sonofabitch deny it."

I see you, DeSalvo, every move, every step of the way.

"I do not like to psychologize..."

Maybe not, but you're extremely facile with it. Not to mention your

"...but given that you bring this conduct up and this conduct is sort of consequence free in the world YOU want to live in,..."

...very easy relationship with the truth and the alacrity with which you like to tell others what I think.

"...don't you have some explaining to do about your private habits or proclivities?"

{hah} Wouldn't you love it if I did?

 Mindy, exactly. But "anarchists" don't want to "rule" everyone else, and they wouldn't be able to. You're right, they would be a government, but if they took away everyone's guns, they wouldn't be anarchists, they would be a dictatorship. So the problem with Scott's claim still stands.

Interestingly, I thought that was the problem addressed in Heinlein's THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, that the "anarchist" colony on the moon "devolved" into a "government." It's still a story that puzzles me... 

................Superherobabylon.blogspot.com.........................

Joe, how would anarchists stop others from having guns? If your "official" anarchists ruled everybody else, that is, took away their guns, wouldn't they just be a de facto government?

Scott,

Excellent post. 

= Mindy

Scott: "And third, Anarchists do not believe that anyone has the right to use force against them, and especially not to punish them for whatever they happen to be doing."

 An obvious problem with this claim: if this were truly the case, would anarchists allow for other men to have guns, or other means of self-defense?  

"Have you stopped beating your wife and fucking your kids yet?"

Funny you mention that, Billy. Because in your Anarcho-capitalist utopia, if someone DID beat their wife and fuck their kids, there would be zero consequences, wouldn't there?

Because, first, you anarchists do not cotton to an established standard for the use of force. Any standard, under any circumstance, subjective. Whatever the aggressor and aggreived bring to the table, right?

Second, you do not cede your rights to anyone, be it government or individual, to judge you or your conduct, no matter what the standard, no matter the conduct, and you support that no one else be judged as well, don't you?

And third, Anarchists do not believe that anyone has the right to use force against them, and especially not to punish them for whatever they happen to be doing.

All manner of evil conduct would go unreported (no one to report it to), unevaluated (who would evaluate it and by what standard?), and unpunished.

Were I so blessed as to have a wife and kids, I might do the opposite (eff the wife and spank the kids if it needed being done).

I do not like to psychologize but given that you bring this conduct up and this conduct is sort of consequence free in the world YOU want to live in, don't you have some explaining to do about your private habits or proclivities?

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!