Debating Anarchism: November 2011

I had a discussion about anarchism with Bret who blogs at anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com. This discussion took place on November 13th, 2011 via Yahoo Messenger. The following is our discussion, with certain personal comments that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand taken out. Since this was more of a “live” debate/discussion and not one that I could sit and think about an argument or question for too long I will add additional comments in italics to help better explain my views and why Bret is wrong (to clarify these were not part of the original discussion). Typos have also been corrected. FYI: The discussion was about two hours so this post is also very long.

[18:21] Ken: Hi, I'm back.

[18:21] zypher666: Hey

[18:22] zypher666: Why do you suppose it's only intelligent people who find anarchy appealing?

[18:23] zypher666: Maybe I should have asked if you ever met a foolish anarchist, that might have disproven the premise of that question.

[18:23] Ken: Well, I liken statism to religion. It's been shown that most atheists are more intelligent than theists and perhaps it takes a certain kind of intellect to see past the, what I'd prefer to call, propaganda.

[18:24] zypher666: Right, but I've met dumb atheists. I haven't met a dumb anarchist.

[18:25] Ken: I honestly haven't met too many anarchists but there is one guy who I saw debate Richard Carrier on his blog and I thought he made some dumb statements and I felt that he didn't articulate his position very well, which enabled Carrier to rip into him. But that's the only time I can recall I met a "dumb" anarchist.

[18:25] zypher666: I know on the whole atheists are well educated, but anarchy... am I going out on a limb if I assume you have a Bachelor's degree?

[18:26] Ken: Honestly I'm just a high school graduate and I'm mostly self-educated. But thank for thinking I'm more "educated" than I actually am. lol

[18:26] zypher666: It must have been the punctuation.

[18:27] Ken: I've always been a pretty writer. I've always had a a higher reading and writing level than my actual education level.

[18:27] Ken: pretty good writer*

[18:28] zypher666: It's pretty writing as well. Or handsome, depending on the gender of your literature.

[18:28] Ken: lol thanks.

[18:30] zypher666: So you se religion and government as similar?

[18:31] zypher666: *see

[18:31] Ken: Yeah. I've written about this elsewhere if you'd like to read it and discuss it. (Link: http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2011/04/tao-of-arizona-atheist-atheist.html)

[18:32] zypher666: Are you more an atheist or more an anarchist?

[18:33] Ken: I'm both equally.

[18:34] zypher666: Would you say you're a voluntarist?

[18:35] Ken: Yes I think that would be good term to use. I think people should be free to have contractual relationships rather than one based purely on hierarchy.

[18:36] zypher666: Like a religion.

[18:36] zypher666: Well, that's a little more legalistic than most religions...

[18:36] zypher666: Maybe not Scientology...

[18:36] zypher666: But the elective nature of it is similar.

[18:37] Ken: Yes it is. I don't think statism and theism are similar in every detail but I do think there are many similarities and that people "believe" in each for much the same reasons.

[18:38] zypher666: Well, I'm saying... let me put it another way, have you read much about anarcho-Christianity?

[18:38] zypher666: Or Christian Anarchy, I can't remember how they phrase it.

[18:39] zypher666: Christo-anarchy? That cannot be right...

[18:39] zypher666: Oh I know, Christianarchy.

[18:39] zypher666: Trademarked

[18:40] Ken: No, I am aware it exists but don't know much about it. I think it's an oxymoron anyhow. Both religion and statism are based on a hierarchy and authority so they're being hypocrites.

[18:40] zypher666: Well, think about it, in voluntarism, what is the basis for the groupings? One of the most popular will be religion.

[18:40] Ken: They're willing to do away with earthly rulers but not their imaginary ones.

[18:40] zypher666: So if you have anarchy, and the population wasn't all or mostly atheist, then there will be voluntarist Christian systems.

[18:41] Ken: That's true.

[18:41] zypher666: That kind of scares the shit out of me.

[18:41] zypher666: Considering what I grew up in, and even worse for my wife.

[18:41] Ken: I would never deny someone their right to believe. I just don't believe Christian anarchism is logical.

[18:41] zypher666: I kind of like that there's this big, mean government that prevents people from being free to do whatever they want.

[18:42] zypher666: Who stops Christian abuse in anarchy?

[18:43] zypher666: If it turns to war, based on the numbers... don't hate me if I pretend to be Christian. I like living more than I like being openly atheist.

[18:43] Ken: Christians actually use the government to force their views on others. Think about all the anti-abortion laws, anti-gay laws, etc. Without a coercive entity like government that forces others to do what the majority want theocrats would not be able to gain power over the masses of people they can now with government.

[18:44] Ken: It's the same with corporations. On a truly free market this form of coercion becomes much, much more difficult if not impossible.

[18:44] zypher666: Who is stopping them from bombing abortion clinics or dragging fags behind pick-up trucks?

[18:45] zypher666: So if I said "Austrian school," would you know what I meant?

[18:45] Ken: The people. You don't need government to have protective agencies. They are simply private companies instead of a government.

[18:46] Ken: Yep. Austrian economics.

[18:46] zypher666: And if those private agencies are the ones bombing abortion clinics and killing gay people?

[18:46] zypher666: What recourse do we have?

[18:47] Ken: Recourse? For what?

[18:47] Ken: Oh.. I see. Didn't see the first comment.

[18:47] zypher666: Ahh

[18:49] Ken: On a free market there are likely to be many companies who would like to gain a piece of the pie and gain more customers. If they're killing people it's not going to bode well for their popularity and other companies will take their business, causing them to lose influence and resources. Other, more ethical companies, would also likely help put down the rogue ones as well.

[18:49] zypher666: So you're paying for this service then, too?

[18:50] zypher666: Oh god... ignore that, the rest of your comment is so much more important.

[18:50] zypher666: Oy... where to start...

[18:50] zypher666: Okay, religion is a perfect proof against your little system of natural morality there.

[18:50] zypher666: By your logic, the most ethical religions will prevail.

[18:50] zypher666: Are you pleased with the outcome in that field?

[18:51] zypher666: There is a free market of religious ideas, so why are religions such shit if the best ones are just bound to succeed?

[18:54] Ken: It depends on what needs that business or religion is trying to fulfill. Most religions focus on eternal life because it comforts people. Most also don't go around killing people. And even those that used to on a large scale, like Christianity, don't anymore. They know it would likely could not get away with it.

I felt his comments were illogical, immature, and unnecessary: “Oy... where to start...” I could say the same thing. He actually likes having a “ big, mean government” that amasses so much power it pretty much does what it wants with no real recourse for its victims, since the courts are a part of the government. This is completely illogical. If anyones' views are “utopian” it's those who believe that a powerful government will not abuse their rights with all of the power you've given them. It's even more illogical when you consider the fact that people use the government’s power to force views and actions upon others.

[18:54] zypher666: [If I seem hostile, it's because I'm a weak person. I apologize ahead of time, and can only promise it won't devolve into direct name-calling... but not much else.]

[18:55] zypher666: I think those religions had to be influenced from exterior forces, not through internal change.

[18:55] Ken: That's what I'm talking about, and the same applies on a free market with companies.

[18:55] zypher666: I think society became more secular, which drew influence away from them, and that they only reason religions became less violent is because they had to face consequences from larger powers.

As I said below I believe this is partly true. Of course, I also think it was the free market of ideas that helped this as well. Without a dominant religion that forces its views on others religions must now compete to gain converts and members. They're not going to do this by acting wholly unethically. And yes, there are some religious groups who do immoral things, like the religious right, etc., but they are a minority when compared to the more liberal religious views that the majority of believers share.

[18:56] zypher666: The secular force wasn't amorphous, it was the state.

[18:56] Ken: I think that's partly true.

[18:56] zypher666: Well, let's look somewhere that has a bad state.

[18:56] zypher666: Like Afghanistan.

[18:56] zypher666: I hear about "lawless regions" in the mountains and what not.

[18:56] zypher666: It's not as though they're eating babies out there.

[18:57] zypher666: But what you have is unregulated power that still strives for order, it doesn't settle into anarchy.

[18:57] Ken: Question. Are you intending this to be an interview or did you just want to discuss these issues. It almost sounds like an interview. That's OK if it is. I just wanted to clarify.

[18:57] zypher666: I don't know, what do you want to do?

[18:58] zypher666: I wasn't planning on posting this in full, I might use ideas from it and link to your blog from Skeptical Eye if I write about this.

[18:58] zypher666: But I won't be directly quoting anything you say without expressly asking you.

[18:58] zypher666: I find it creepy otherwise.

[18:58] zypher666: I like to get express permission so that people feel I am properly representing them.

[18:59] zypher666: So I would show you in full what I was posting and let you tell me whether I cut off a comment or whatever.

[18:59] Ken: Like I said it doesn't bother me if you want to post it. I just wanted to clarity. But let me answer you. Afghanistan isn't an anarchy. They're being occupied by a military and they're in the middle of a war zone.

[18:59] zypher666: I don't mean they're an anarchy now.

[18:59] Ken: OK. No problem.

[18:59] zypher666: They were in the 80s

[18:59] Ken: I'd have to look that up.

[18:59] zypher666: When they forced out the Soviets, it was a power vacuum of epic proportions.

[19:00] zypher666: Well I promise you, that's what it was, it wasn't like an idyllic anarchism, it's the temporary kind that lead to despair and tyrants who prey on people in despair.

[19:00] zypher666: There were a handful of groups fighting for control and the largest was the Taliban.

[19:01] zypher666: But as so often happens, outside influences brought any good outcome out of reach, in this case it was Pakistan.

[19:01] zypher666: But what I wanted to mention was that What happens, unless you have perfect conditions, is that any anarchy is a precursor to tyranny.

[19:02] zypher666: I think there are perfect conditions under which an anarchy might work, but they're ridiculous.

First of all, there was a government in Afghanistan. It wasn't the most stable but there was a government presence because the Russians left a government in charge when they pulled out. However, this government was not able to stabilize itself and consolidate its power before the Taliban made itself the dominant power there. There was a form of government put in place so it hardly could be called an anarchy.

[19:02] zypher666: It would need to be global, it would need to be in the presence of a global secular culture, it would need to be advocated by nearly all...

That's where you seem to misunderstand anarchists. Anarchists don't want to force their views on everyone. They just want to be left alone so they can live their lives in peace without some intrusive, oppressive, and violent institution, like most governments, from dictating how they live their lives. But, obviously, governments want to control everything so they're not necessarily going to allow that. They have in a limited way in the 1800's with “Utopia” and other anarchy's that existed within the borders of the U.S., but there was an anarchy with the Wall Street protesters and the cops came and ripped it apart. They had their own kitchen, tents, library, medical experts, and safety crew and a cleaning crew. All without a central authority. More proof that a central authority isn't needed for peace and organization and it's occurring right now, right here in the U.S.

[19:02] zypher666: But if it's universal, secular and endorsed, yes, it can work.

[19:03] Ken: Not necessarily. Somalia since 1991 didn't have a government and no powers forced themselves on the population.

[19:03] zypher666: Right and they have one of the worst infant mortality rates in the world...

Not that this is due to their lack of government. The fact is the rate of infant mortality, among several other indicators of prosperity have risen since the government collapsed. See here. The reason they are poor is not because they have no government, but because they've always been a poor country when compared to others.

[19:04] Ken: However, I haven't read too much on their current situation. I know that the UN was trying to install a government and that they had a interim government but I'm not sure what happened with it.

[19:04] zypher666: And people dump nuclear waste off their shore, since no one is stopping them.

[19:04] zypher666: And they harbor pirates.

[19:04] zypher666: And Al Qaeda is actually in Somalia, and given the timeline in Afghanistan, you may only have to wait another 3-4 years for a Muslim state there.

I'm not sure about this. It may be true that some Al Qaeda members are hiding out in Somalia, but what does this have to do with the effectiveness of a society without a government? Or pirates? Yes, other nations are dumping nuclear waste into their shores, however, people are trying to stop them. See here. Not that this is a huge problem assuming you take control of the situation and form an environmental watchdog agency. And no, this isn't a form of government, but a form of organization. In addition, these complaints are pretty silly since even the U.S. has had terrorists hiding out, and they even had knowledge of some of the hijackers of 9/11 but they didn't do anything! (See Terrorism and Tyranny by James Bovard.) Companies, despite EPA guidelines, dump waste in the U.S. too. Many groups also try to pass laws and pressure government to relax it's environmental laws if not do away with them altogether. It's clear Bret is simply trying to come up with anything he can to discredit this functioning anarchy because he is clearly a statist apologist.

[19:05] Ken: Actually, compared to their infant mortality rates when there was a government they've improved.

[19:05] zypher666: The UN might as well not be in Somalia, lol, they won't listen to them there.

[19:06] zypher666: I don't think an anarchy needs to compare to the worst government, but to the best one.

[19:07] zypher666: So the fact that the infant mortality rate is higher in one situation doesn't really address that there are much healthier people living in places ruled by a government.

[19:07] zypher666: If Somalia, under anarchy, had better health than systems of socialized medicine in Europe... then we can talk.

Once again, Somalia started off poor but many things have improved since their government collapsed. We are also talking about whether or not it's possible to live without a government, which Somalia has proven, along with other examples, rather well.

[19:07] Ken: Well, their level of security is better than when there was a government and despite there not being a government things are not deteriorating into chaos. While compared with other nations it's welfare is low but they're also a poor country.

[19:08] Ken: This condition wasn't caused by anarchy. Things have actually improved under anarchy.

[19:08] zypher666: I can imagine systems of government worse than anarchy, that doesn't make all government worse than anarchy.

[19:09] Ken: No. Though when you place people in power over others it tends to cause problems.

[19:09] zypher666: And I severely doubt Somalia's health has increased under anarchy, I imagine it's more linked to something tangible, like UN aid being allowed in or the overall increase in world health and medical availability.

You doubt Somalia's health has increased under anarchy? Here are the facts. Their live expectancy has improved, they have access to more physicians, better sanitation, and better access to medical facilities, and their infant mortality and maternal mortality rates have both improved.

[19:10] zypher666: Anarchy has people with power over others, at least the anarchy you suggested does.

There is such a thing as legitimate force and illegitimate force. Governments use illegitimate forms of force upon people, which consists of placing rules and restrictions without consent, among other things. In an anarchy, people have a voice and can agree to the rules of society or they can join another community, or they can negotiate further. It all depends on what issues are being disputed. A signed social contract is a binding agreement saying that you will be held accountable for your actions. Therefore, you have allowed yourself to be subject to punishment in some manner if you break the rules. That is a legitimate use of force. This is very much unlike today where congress or voters pass laws that you have never agreed to, and in many cases are immoral, that you're forced to adhere to. One obvious example is the banning of gay marriage, or the attempts at the banning of abortion.

Anarchists do not always dislike force, as long as it is legitimate as I just explained. It's a fact of life that force must sometimes be used.

[19:10] Ken: If government actually helped people, didn't try to invade other countries, invade our privacy, etc. I wouldn't mind government.

[19:10] zypher666: Private companies don't invade countries or your privacy?

[19:11] Ken: Yes, but it's contractual. It's not absolute. I CHOOSE to bind myself to a contract with this individual. If I break such and such rule and I agreed not to do that, that is a legitimate use of force.

[19:11] zypher666: Really?

[19:11] zypher666: So if you kill me, whose security company arrests you against your will?

[19:12] zypher666: I'm assuming it's yours or mine.

[19:12] zypher666: But I'm curious which one, assuming they are different.

[19:12] Ken: Of course private companies can invade privacy but those that tend to do this are rebuked by the public aren't they? You can boycott them can't you? If a cop beats you most times they will not get punished. It's a matter of absolute power over others.

[19:12] zypher666: I can fills books with corporate abuses that are never avenged...

[19:12] Ken: Your security company can arrest me since I committed an obvious crime.

[19:12] zypher666: Why?

[19:13] zypher666: You didn't sign a contract to follow their rules.

Once again, he ignores my point about legitimate forms of force.

[19:13] Ken: That's true bu the same can be said of government.

[19:13] zypher666: I agree, but I don't think we should get rid of corporations.

[19:13] zypher666: I accept that corporations and governments provide a service that outweighs their potential for abuse.

[19:14] zypher666: But I'm more curious why my security company can arrest you, who never agreed to follow their rules.

[19:14] zypher666: That hardly seems fair.

Once again, it's entirely fair.

[19:14] zypher666: Especially since you didn't kill me, it was really the son of the guy who runs the security firm I employ.

[19:14] Ken: No, I don't think corporations should be deconstructed because of that. My point is that the people can actually do something because their power is not absolute like the government's is.

[19:14] zypher666: But they're going to arrest you and execute you to cover it up.

[19:15] zypher666: Corporation shave absolute power, because they hold all the power in the market and the government...

This statist apologist misses the point. As things stand right now police and governments' immoral or illegal actions are more often than not never corrected. They trample on the constitution and the bill of rights. See several of James Bovard's book for a mass of examples. Why does this happen? Because the government holds the monopoly on force and rule making. They can basically do what they want, when they want with very little consequences. In an anarchy I agree issues very well could (and most likely would) arise. My point is the fact that the privatized companies will not have the use of this legitimatized monopoly of force (the state) that it can use to get away with things. On a free market there will be true accountability because no single entity will have a monopoly of force over everyone and everything like the government currently does.

Let me give a real world example with the issue of police brutality in case I was not clear. With these Wall Street protests occurring the police are often using a lot of needless and unjustified violence against the protesters. If a person rightly defends themselves (as I believe it should be everyone's right in this situation) they are immediately charged with “assaulting a peace officer,” a very “serious” charge, mind you. And for what? Doing nothing more than attempting to protect oneself from abuse! The system is rigged to allow those in power to do what they want, when they want, and you have no real recourse. However, if you take away that “authority” they are no longer immune from punishment from their abusive actions. Or any action for that matter that people see as harmful or abusive. This is the power of the free market and an equal society.

[19:15] Ken: Let me ask you something. If I were standing there right now would you kill me if you had the chance?

[19:15] zypher666: How much money do you have on you?

[19:15] Ken: Exactly. Without government that coercive entity is no longer there.

[19:15] zypher666: Did I see you with a huge wad?

[19:15] zypher666: What about your shoes?

[19:15] Ken: $100

[19:16] zypher666: How nice are your shoes?

[19:16] Ken: They're New Balance lol

[19:16] zypher666: Size?

[19:16] Ken: 12 1/2

[19:16] zypher666: While you're answering, I killed you.

[19:16] zypher666: Oh, and your shoes almost fit me.

[19:16] zypher666: Bonus.

[19:16] Ken: lol Would you say that was immoral?

[19:17] Ken: If you killed me that is.

[19:17] zypher666: Of course it is, but if I can get away with it, I would dig a six fox hole for a hundred bucks and some shoes.

[19:17] zypher666: I have time.

[19:17] zypher666: Plus who knows what I'll do to your corpse.

[19:17] zypher666: Maybe keep a trophy of some kind.

[19:18] zypher666: I'm getting hard just thinking about cutting off your ear...

[19:18] Ken: So you could kill someone without getting caught you would?

[19:18] zypher666: People are great, aren't they?

[19:18] zypher666: Who says I haven't already.

[19:18] Ken: lol

[19:18] zypher666: I'm rich, they never suspect us.

[19:18] zypher666: I used to sell drugs just for the thrill of it.

[19:19] zypher666: Every black person I know who sold drugs went to jail within a few years, I went 12 without so much as being questioned.

[19:19] zypher666: Ahh, to be white and drive a nice car...

[19:19] zypher666: It's like winning the class lottery.

[19:19] Ken: Do you believe that without a god handing down the rules it would be OK if I came back from the dead and killed someone else? Because there was no absolute morality?

I wasn't expecting this reaction, but at least he admitted his action of killing me would be wrong.

[19:20] zypher666: There's nothing immoral about zombies, no.

[19:20] zypher666: But I don't believe in zombies... now if you said you were reincarnated, okay.

[19:20] zypher666: But you would probably be reincarnated as an animal, not a person.

[19:20] zypher666: But if you were a lion and you killed things, I wouldn't hold it against you, no.

[19:20] zypher666: Same goes for zombie you. You gotta get your brain on.

[19:21] zypher666: But I also wouldn't feel bad if someone killed zombie you.

[19:21] zypher666: What was the point again?

[19:24] Ken: Let me quote you from before when I asked you if you believed killing me was immoral. You said, "Of course it is." Did you need any god or government to tell you this?

[19:24] zypher666: Hell, even if God was handing down rules, I read the Bible, it would still be fine if I ravaged a city and took a woman against her will as my wife.

[19:24] Ken: True :)

[19:24] zypher666: Actually yes.

[19:25] Ken: Oh really? Why?

[19:25] zypher666: Have you ever interacted with children?

[19:25] Ken: Yes.

[19:25] zypher666: Are we born moral?

[19:26] Ken: In some ways yes. We are born with an innate sense of some basic morality. Of course, it takes society as a whole to help shape and mold those moral beliefs.

[19:27] zypher666: Really.

[19:27] Ken: Have you read anything on evolutionary psychology? or Marc Hauser's Moral Minds?

[19:27] zypher666: I'm more curious who teaches little children to steal, lie, and hurt others.

[19:27] zypher666: Since we're supposedly born moral.

[19:28] zypher666: Whoever it is must be stopped.

[19:28] zypher666: Because somehow they have taught every child ever born to do bad things.

[19:28] zypher666: Do you suppose they work for the government??

[19:28] zypher666: It's like a scheme to make themselves relevant...

[19:29] Ken: Parents. And people have a natural sense of unfairness. If someone takes something we get a sense of unease and unfairness, leading us to feel it's immoral. Of course, like all morality this doesn't always stop someone.

[19:29] zypher666: Oh sure, we know when it's unfair to us.

[19:29] zypher666: I never said we were not born selfish.

[19:29] zypher666: I don't think children are capable of morality.

[19:29] zypher666: They are not moral or immoral, they are amoral.

[19:30] Ken: Yes, but many people are feel angered by abused toward others too. Otherwise there would never have been any civil rights movements.

[19:30] zypher666: They must be trained, like dogs.

[19:30] zypher666: Which is sad to think of, but it's true.

[19:30] Ken: To some degree they are amoral, but from my reading there does appear to be some basis of right and wrong even at a very basic level.

[19:31] zypher666: Actually, people who are actually abused don't feel it is unfair, nor for they seek justice.

[19:31] zypher666: Like, real REAL abuse.

[19:31] Ken: However, we are not children. We are adults who will teach our children right from wrong.

[19:31] zypher666: Right.

[19:31] zypher666: What's right and what's wrong?

I found his form of argumentation odd and it was difficult to tell if he was being serious or not. However, I was pointing out the fact that morality is part of our culture, even our biology, which he did nothing to refute. It appears that even babies have some rudimentary sense of morality, giving empirical evidence of our innate morality. As the numerous anarchys I've discussed a central form of authority isn't needed for morality.

[19:32] Ken: If you believe government is moral then can you answer why it took people fighting the government to change laws to make things more fair for blacks, women, etc.?

[19:32] zypher666: Do I teach my kids to obey the laws of my security firm or yours?

[19:32] zypher666: Strange, minorities and women only have rights when a government protects them...

[19:33] zypher666: Where there was no government action (or no government), those groups are marginalized.

[19:33] Ken: Oh really? Then why in many Indian societies without any form of government were women often the head of the household and were often leaders?

[19:33] Ken: or elders I should say.

[19:34] zypher666: Where there are parents, there is hierarchy...

[19:34] zypher666: So having a woman leading a household is still government.

This argument of his was simply downright illogical.

[19:34] zypher666: But I can't get anarchists to agree there.

[19:34] zypher666: So I'll drop that.

[19:35] zypher666: The problem with small government is that they tend to become dominated, and then they're in a bad situation. Just look at the Indians.

[19:35] Ken: Governments are by nature a group that controls large amounts of land and *allows* its' "citizens" to live on it for a price. This is often done without any consent, along with all their laws and whatnot.

[19:36] zypher666: So if there was no land tax, it would be an anarchy?

[19:37] Ken: No, I'm just trying to explain partly why a woman who is head of the household is not a government.

[19:37] zypher666: And actually, tribes roamed huge areas and had to work diplomatically with other groups... they were just smaller, which made their conquer very easy.

[19:37] zypher666: There has never been humanity without government, is what I'm saying... it's just that what you call anarchy is essentially a minarchy.

[19:38] Ken: Of course there is. I've given you several examples. Also it must be remembered that people lived together without government for centuries.

[19:38] Ken: Government has not always been in existence.

[19:39] zypher666: So the children in a family are free?

[19:39] zypher666: I remember being a young adult... I didn't feel that there was no hierarchy or abuse of power.

[19:39] zypher666: Where did they live without government?

[19:39] zypher666: Even chimps have hierarchies.

[19:39] zypher666: Isn't this all about power?

[19:39] zypher666: At it's core, isn't the basic unit of concern power?

[19:39] zypher666: *concern

[19:39] zypher666: Unless we devolved to not have chimpanzee social traits, we've had government since we speciated.

[19:39] zypher666: We've never been lone wolves, islands unto ourselves.

[19:40] zypher666: We've always worked together, some giving more than they take, many being abused unfairly.

[19:40] Ken: It's about legitimate and illegitimate forms of power. It is illegitimate if coercion (not contractual) is the form of power used.

[19:40] zypher666: There's no abuse of power you can imagine that isn't played out among apes.

[19:41] Ken: Let me come back to something. You're an atheist correct?

[19:41] zypher666: Okay, let me try to steer this to something concrete... you're saying what happens to you should be voluntary... at what age do I get to choose that?

[19:41] zypher666: Yes

[19:41] zypher666: [Go with yours, we can come back to mine if you want]

[19:44] Ken: OK. I'm curious where you're going with that. I'm assuming then that you do not believe that god is any form of moral law giver. That, even IF there was a god, morality would still be lacking objectivity, hence the Euthyphro Dilemma.

[19:44] Ken: Is that correct so far?

[19:45] zypher666: I don't follow logic, though.

[19:45] zypher666: I'm an absurdist.

[19:45] zypher666: I don't need there to be proof to know there is right and wrong.

[19:45] Ken: OK, so you believe that right and wrong comes from where? You just "know" it exists?

[19:46] zypher666: I don't know it exists, it has to.

He was actually being a hypocrite before because before he argued that government and authority was needed to hand down rules, but here he claims that morality just exists. Well, which is it?!

[19:46] zypher666: It's just too complex for anyone to codify completely.

[19:46] zypher666: But we can know parts of it with some certainty.

[19:46] Ken: Alright... I don't recall hearing about absurdism before. I'm googling. :)

[19:46] zypher666: I just made it up. I think Camus also used the term.

I found his reply that he “made it up” confusing since I did happen to find a Wikipedida entry on it. Throughout this discussion I couldn't tell if he was being sincere or just being a smart ass and wasting my time. At this time I was laughing and thought he was funny, but I was beginning to get very tired about half way through the discussion and possibly mistook his sarcasm for lighthearted humor.

[19:47] zypher666: But I don't borrow from him.

[19:47] zypher666: I just don't think logic is the answer to anything.

[19:47] zypher666: And from what I read, I think you agree to some degree.

[19:47] zypher666: You know that it's better to observe something is true than to imagine it to be true.

[19:47] zypher666: So, just because I can't imagine something doesn't make it false.

[19:48] zypher666: Right and wrong has as many ways of being determined as there are people, I just prefer consensus.

[19:48] Ken: I'm reading about it... to some degree, though I am a moral relativist. But I do believe that morality can have a foundation through philosophical reasoning and the social contract.

[19:48] zypher666: Just so we all know what rules we're working with.

[19:49] zypher666: You believe in a social contract and you're an anarchist?

[19:49] zypher666: I know it's possible, just clarifying.

[19:49] Ken: But you agree that the Euthyphro Dilemma destroys the idea of a theistic form of morality?

[19:50] Ken: Yes social contract theory is a basis of my ideas.

[19:50] Ken: I'm not your typical anarchist. I do not favor socialism.

[19:50] zypher666: At what age can you sign a social contract? Heh, assuming it's literal in your case.

[19:51] zypher666: [Most anarchists I know hate socialism.]

[19:51] zypher666: [The only one I ever met who was that way is Noam Chomsky.]

[19:51] Ken: I'd recommend you read my series on my views I've written called The Tao of Arizona Atheist. That must be decided by the parent/s along with the child's input once they're old enough.

[19:52] Ken: Interesting....

[19:52] zypher666: So the parents are the ultimate authority.

[19:52] zypher666: ?

[19:52] Ken: It has to be that way until a child gets old enough.

[19:52] zypher666: But you also give them the authority to decide when a child can be free.

[19:52] zypher666: That seems... kind of scary.

If a parent is responsible they will teach their child responsibility. And even with government how many parents just allow their kids nowadays to go where they want and do what they want? Many are, to be blunt, bad parents. So, how is this some kind of criticism of the kind of society I envision? This guy's arguments are just as idiotic as those of the atheists at Daylight Atheism.

[19:53] zypher666: My wife would probably still be stuck at home if she couldn't get government loans and grants to leave her home and go to college.

[19:53] Ken: Of course, around the age of 10 or so depending on the child you can begin educating them about the rules and ask them to sign an actual contract if you want.

[19:54] zypher666: Age 10?

[19:54] zypher666: So we start executing at 10... or...

[19:54] zypher666: are there limits.

[19:54] zypher666: You think a 10 year old can sign a contract?

This is the kind of idiocy and ridiculous nonsense by him I've been talking about.

[19:54] Ken: I'm referring to the time when an average child might be able to understand the idea of a contract and be responsible for it. But like I said it depends on the child.

[19:55] zypher666: I hate to ask about age of consent...


[19:55] zypher666: I feel like that conversation would get us noticed by the FBI

[19:55] zypher666: I don't think any 10 year old can make life decisions.

I never said anything about life decisions. I'm not saying that I think a ten year old can “vote” or whatever else. All I was referring to was learning about responsibility and how your actions affect others and begin teaching them about contractual relationships. How he framed my argument, he makes it sound like I'd allow a six year old to drive a car when I'm actually referring to beginning to educate them about driving a car so that once they're old enough they will hopefully have the knowledge and awareness of how to function in a society that uses cars. Same thing with a social contract. Educating someone about something is a far cry from giving them free reign to do whatever they want. I was beginning to get a little tired and I didn't use the correct word, but that doesn't change the the fact that a child can begin to be educated about things at an early age.

[19:55] Ken: It must be noted that the "age of consent" is purely arbitrary. People before the age of 18 can do and understand many complex things.

[19:55] zypher666: None of them, anywhere, at any time, ever.

[19:55] zypher666: The age of consent is 16 in more states.

[19:56] Ken: I'm not talking about sex. I'm only referring to rules in the home.

[19:56] zypher666: And age of consent isn't about understanding complex things.

Of course it is! At a certain age most people are supposed to have the knowledge and maturity to do certain things.

[19:56] zypher666: Sex is in the home.

[19:56] zypher666: Most molestation occurs between people related.

[19:56] zypher666: Who enforces that in anarchy?

Here we go again with this same nonsense...

[19:56] zypher666: The person I hired comes and arrests me, so they lose a customer?

[19:56] zypher666: That makes sense...

[19:56] zypher666: No conflict of interest there.

[19:57] Ken: People obviously.

[19:57] zypher666: Who.

[19:58] Ken: We already have family and parents who report abuses so why would we need to have another agency take a child away from an abusive parent or family member? A mother who is alerted can tell the father to leave or take the child away.

[19:58] zypher666: People do it now, they're called agents of the government.

[19:58] zypher666: You have to actually know who these nebulous "people" will be.

[19:58] zypher666: I don't trust "people."

[19:58] zypher666: "People" do horrible things, I need to know who and I need to know their accountability.

[19:58] zypher666: ....

[19:58] zypher666: Tell the father to leave?

[19:58] zypher666: Oh you are precious!

[19:58] zypher666: :D

[19:59] zypher666: I seriously laughed there.

[19:59] zypher666: Never work in social services, sir.

[19:59] zypher666: You will be depressed and shocked by "people."

[19:59] zypher666: Tell him to leave... lol.

[19:59] zypher666: I need to remember that one.

[19:59] Ken: lol I was going to add that a private police, security agency can also intervene if necessary. :)

[19:59] zypher666: They CAN, can they?

[19:59] zypher666: Will they?

[20:00] zypher666: Who is paying them?

[20:00] Ken: Of course.

Once again, he's making up arbitrary nonsense in trying to get around the fact that a person harmed a child and should rightfully be punished in some way and a variety of other consequences, such as possible separation from the child for a certain period of time. Who enforces this?! What a dumb question. A child abuse protection firm or some privatized agency. Just as private security enforces peoples' property rights today they could theoretically do the same for other rights as well, and he's not questioning the authority of today's security guards who were hired to protect someone's property rights.

It's just pathetic and moronic that I run into arguments like this. It's no different than hearing about the rampant immorality and lack of accountability of a society without a belief in god by theists. It's the exact same nonsense, doomsday crap that Christians spew at atheists when their favored authority figure isn't in charge and there isn't one shred of evidence that anarchy will cause these issues they're complaining about.

[20:01] zypher666: Let's come up with concrete situations, because these are very vague situations.

[20:01] zypher666: Suppose I have security firm A.

[20:01] zypher666: You have security firm B.

[20:01] zypher666: You live next door to me.

[20:01] zypher666: I beat my kids and wife, and everyone knows.

[20:01] Ken: That's what they're being paid to do. The parents' security agency, or it could be an agency that the parents contract through after the fact.

[20:01] zypher666: Who knocks on my door to stop me?

[20:01] zypher666: So you need money now to escape?

[20:01] zypher666: Good, I'll just stash all the money from them.

[20:01] zypher666: And they will be helpless.

[20:02] Ken: OK....

[20:02] zypher666: I'll keep them penniless and beaten.

[20:02] zypher666: They won't seek help, because they know I'll kill them when I'm out on bail.

[20:02] zypher666: I'm just that crazy.

[20:02] zypher666: After all, I only hit them because I love them.

[20:03] Ken: Someone can alert authorities and since you committed a clear violation of your child's rights you will be dealt with n whatever manner that society has decided to deal with molesters.

[20:03] zypher666: And I only rape my daughter because she looks like my wife did, when she was hot.

[20:03] zypher666: You know what I'm talking about.

More of his doomsday nonsense...

[20:03] zypher666: Firm A or B?

[20:03] Ken: That's really disgusting.

[20:03] zypher666: It's a sick world, my friend.

[20:04] zypher666: I can't be an anarchist... I'm too creative.

[20:04] zypher666: So firm A or B?

[20:04] zypher666: which one arrests me?

[20:05] zypher666: This is a real situation that happens hundreds of times a day.

[20:05] zypher666: Millions of girls are molested by family members.

[20:05] zypher666: You have to deal with this.

[20:05] zypher666: It's reality.

[20:05] zypher666: Firm A or B, go.

[20:05] Ken: And people are stopped from doing those kinds of things. That's the point. Clearly you're trying to establish that in an anarchy people can rape and molest their kids and nothing will happen to them. Which is ridiculous. But I could talk to your company and tell them what's going on and see if they will intervene.

More of the same nonsense...

[20:05] zypher666: No I'm not.

[20:05] zypher666: I'm asking the logistics.

[20:06] zypher666: It's a simple issue now: you call 911.

[20:06] zypher666: Who do you call in your world, firm A or B?

[20:06] Ken: And you don't think an issue like this cannot be dealt with outside of government?

[20:06] zypher666: (A is mine, B is yours)

[20:06] zypher666: No, I don't, actually.

[20:06] Ken: Why?

[20:06] zypher666: I think the Catholic Church agrees with you, though.

More of the same nonsense, and I think he was implying I was a child molester or something, which is so far from my views it's not funny and I am very insulted by that insinuation.

[20:06] zypher666: And Penn State.

[20:06] Ken: Agrees with what?

[20:07] zypher666: They both side with you, but I disagree.

[20:07] zypher666: I think you have to actually address abuse.

[20:07] zypher666: I think they would agree you don't need the state to get involved in child molestation.

[20:07] Ken: I have. You don't think family members cannot intervene, or a private company cannot look into abuse cases?

[20:07] Ken: That's not true at all.

[20:07] zypher666: I'm asking you about private companies.

[20:07] zypher666: A or B?

[20:08] zypher666: Why is that such a hard question??

[20:08] Ken: A private company could easily do the same. I said A

I thought I said A already but I looked back through and I couldn't find that I had replied so I guess it was just my ever increasing drowsiness that caused some confusion. But he never did answer my arguments about exactly why someone, other than his deity (government), must come in and help out in a situation.

[20:08] zypher666: It's a simple matter of jurisdiction.

[20:08] zypher666: Oh okay, so you contact my company.

[20:08] Ken: As I said, that's one possibility.

[20:08] zypher666: I happen to know one of the senior VPs

[20:08] zypher666: He said I wouldn't do that.

[20:09] zypher666: And they arrest you for making false claims.

[20:09] zypher666: Thank god I golf with that guy.

More nonsense. However I do admit these are possible scenarios, but my point is that we hear about scandals all the time and people express their outrage. There is no reason why people cannot boycott an unethical protection agency that allows a rapist, molester, or whatever, around a child. Again, my point is that there are answers for situations like this in a world without a government. He has completely failed to answer this overall argument of mine throughout this entire discussion. He just declares it so by fiat. Sounds kind of like a Christian doesn't he?

[20:09] Ken: Then I contact another company that deals with child abuse cases and they come into your home and investigate.

[20:09] Ken: They find ample evidence and punish you in some manner.

[20:10] zypher666: I never signed anything with these people.

[20:10] zypher666: Get out off my sovereign property.

[20:10] zypher666: How?

[20:10] zypher666: They can't even get in my home.

[20:10] Ken: And keep you away from your child for X number of years, or until the mother feels it's OK.

[20:10] Ken: You've harmed someone, breaking any right you have.

[20:11] zypher666: My security firm said there's no problem.

This goes on for quite some time.... his nonsense “just so” stories he makes up just to “prove” chaos will reign without his precious government.

[20:11] zypher666: Why are these strange people I never signed anything with taking me away??

[20:11] Ken: I had said they came to investigate.

[20:12] Ken: They found solid evidence and talked with the mother and feel it's best to keep you away from your child. Like I said, morality doesn't always need to be written out word by word. Most times we *know* something is wrong without having to sign a piece of paper.

And he even admitted as much earlier when he said he believed morality just exists.

[20:12] zypher666: They did go investigate, they found nothing because I knew the inspector.

More nonsense...

[20:12] zypher666: Which is why I signed on with that company.

[20:12] zypher666: I volunteered to become part of a rigged system.

[20:12] zypher666: And they're happy to take my money and let me live my life how I want.

[20:12] zypher666: Why would they talk to her? She doesn't pay the bills.

[20:13] Ken: lol Funny stuff.

[20:13] zypher666: I paid them, they talk to me.

[20:13] Ken: Truly.

[20:13] zypher666: :D

[20:13] Ken: On a free market there are likely many companies that perform the same function and I find one that you didn't pay off :)

Here I decide to just bullshit with him and make up my own story... The fact is these stories – which is exactly what they are – do not do a single thing to disprove the fact (and yes, it's a fact) that government isn't needed to enforce rules. I've even given empirical evidence to this effect. As an example, Angola, in the late-nineteenth century, exported beeswax, ivory, and rubber, and would trade with middle men, who represented the European traders. In most cases trade went smoothly with the middle men coming and paying for the goods, but sometimes they would come in and steal what they wanted and kill some of the workers in the process. In order to stop this abuse the Africans created a credit system where the middle men would pay for a certain amount of goods up front and the Africans would harvest only what the middle men paid for. When the middle men came to the village to collect their goods there was nothing to steal since they already paid for the goods, and no reason to resort to violence. This situation was controlled without intervention from any courts or security forces. Or government!

[20:13] zypher666: And what jurisdiction do they have?

[20:13] zypher666: They can just roll up on me and kidnap me?

[20:14] Ken: Again, there was clear evidence against you.

[20:14] zypher666: Without me signing any agreement to follow their rules?

[20:14] zypher666: Okay, let's switch it up...

[20:14] zypher666: suppose I didn't molest or beat anyone.

[20:14] zypher666: Suppose I smoked crack in my foyer.

[20:14] zypher666: And the neighbors saw me.

[20:14] zypher666: Their security firm enforce cocaine laws, mine doesn't.

[20:14] Ken: Like I said before, morality doesn't always need to be written out word by word. Most times we *know* something is wrong without having to sign a piece of paper.

[20:14] zypher666: Can I be arrested?

[20:15] zypher666: [You do need it on a piece of paper... that's why rape wasn't a punishable crime in many places for a long time... because there's nothing against rape in the Bible.]

This makes no sense. There were written codes even before the bible. I also find it entirely ridiculous that it was simply due to a little piece of paper that rape was allowed. No, it was allowed because women were seen as inferior.

[20:15] Ken: No, because you didn't sign a contract with the firm that makes that a crime.

[20:16] zypher666: But my neighbor's firm is dedicated to keeping a drug free, family-safe environment.

[20:16] zypher666: And my drug use is a clear threat to them.

[20:16] zypher666: Or so they decided.

[20:16] Ken: No, we're a more moral society now a days. Like murder and theft we *know* rape is wrong.

[20:16] Ken: You did nothing that harmed your neighbor.

[20:18] Ken: Of course, if it was an issue there is no reason why your neighbor and you cannot come to an agreement if they don't like what you're doing. Again, "vices are not crimes" and should not be punishable just because someone doesn't like it.

[20:19] Ken: That's when you get abuses like you have now, with religious groups forcing gay people to be unable to marry and other bull%&*!@#

[20:22] zypher666: Yeah... you should research date rape and tell me people know it's wrong.

This is a pointless objection. Not to mention wrong. People know that rape is wrong, even those who commit it, unless they're psychopaths. You don't think that when people commit most crimes they know it's wrong? Of course they do.

[20:22] zypher666: But I didn't molest my neighbor.

[20:22] zypher666: Yet somehow you had me arrested.

[20:22] zypher666: I wasn't hurting you at all.

[20:22] zypher666: But for some reason you think jurisdiction does not require contractual agreement if it's hurting someone else.

[20:22] zypher666: Well I have kids at home and it's negligent in their eyes for me to be doing drugs.

[20:22] zypher666: So why can a molester get arrested and a drug user not?

[20:22] zypher666: Because you think drugs should be legal and molestation shouldn't?

[20:22] zypher666: I agree, but you can have legal drugs in a government...

[20:22] zypher666: but you can also have illegal drugs in an anarchy.

[20:22] zypher666: Actually gay people can get married.

[20:22] zypher666: Any gay person can marry any gay person.

[20:22] zypher666: They just can't get government recognition.

[20:22] zypher666: Except in some states.

[20:22] zypher666: Without government, no married couple (hetero or otherwise) gets any government protection at all.

[20:22] zypher666: So the over 1000 rights of a married person become obsolete.

[20:22] zypher666: The problem with gay marriage is that gay people want more government, they want government protection of their unions.

[20:22] zypher666: And I doubt you'll ever get a Christian parallel system in an anarchy to recognize gay rights...

[20:22] zypher666: So if you are gay and you got married in your little section of anarchy, and you are hospitalized... better hope the closest hospital is a secular, gay-friendly hospital.

[20:22] zypher666: Because I don't think you can get St. Bleeding Heart's to allow your partner into the room with you.

[20:23] zypher666: You might be able to force them with a government, but not anarchy.

[20:23] zypher666: In an anarchy, you can be any kind of bigot you can get away with.

[20:23] zypher666: And people got away with slavery for tens of thousands of years... so... I have low expectations of humanity.

[20:24] zypher666: [Too much?]

[20:24] Ken: Yeah... allow me to catch up a minute :)

[20:24] zypher666: [It's all this crack I'm smoking in my foyer...]

[20:25] Ken: Yes you can have "legal" drugs in a government but the cigarette and alcohol companies pay the government millions to outlaw other forms of drugs.

[20:27] zypher666: Well originally it was paper makers and racists.

Not exactly. Racism was a factor with one of the original reasons being that cocaine, for example, was made illegal because of it's “popularity with blacks.” However, the alcohol and tobacco companies also played a very large role in lobbying the government. For example, marijuana was banned due to “the lobbying of alcohol producers who were trying to suppress competition from a 'cheap popular intoxicant.” (Lost Rights, by James Bovard; 200) I'm beginning to doubt this guy's alleged knowledge of history.

[20:27] Ken: The point is having freedom for yourself, so long as you don't violate the freedoms and rights of others. These rights are agreed to through a contract and/or agreed to without formal agreement that this is wrong, like murder. We all know murder is wrong. We don't need any law to tell us this.

[20:27] zypher666: But sure.

[20:27] zypher666: Let's deal with murder then.

[20:27] zypher666: Suppose I kill my kid, who do you call?

[20:27] zypher666: My security firm?

[20:28] zypher666: By the way... how do you know who my security firm is?

[20:28] zypher666: Can't I just keep it a secret so you can never know and never report me?

[20:28] zypher666: Right to privacy, and all that.

[20:28] zypher666: Or do we tattoo it to our forehead or something...

More nonsense and stories.... This time he adds pathetic ridicule. What he's failed to do this entire time is provide a single fact that proves privatization is either impractical or impossible.

[20:29] Ken: I don't doubt disputes would arise, such as your example of you smoking something and a neighbor not liking it. But there is not reason why such a situation needs a government to solve the situation.

[20:30] zypher666: I guess, in your eyes, but it's unrealistic.

Says who? Someone who has completely failed to cite a single relevant fact during this entire discussion? More statements by fiat as well.

[20:30] zypher666: But this example might be better for you.

[20:30] Ken: In an anarchy there will be people who enforce the rules of a society, which is what all these arguments are hinging upon.

[20:30] zypher666: who are these people.

[20:30] zypher666: Private security firms we hire?

[20:30] Ken: Unrealistic? I'm sorry but you haven't prove that by any stretch of the imagination.

[20:31] zypher666: For the record, I won't be proving anything...

I think I, and anyone with any understanding of the issues, can plainly see that.

[20:31] Ken: I imagine there are private security firms people can hire if they want. Or there are groups like police who can investigate crimes and enforce rules (that people agree to, or are common sense, such as rape and murder).

[20:32] zypher666: I can't prove much, let alone about something this complex.

[20:32] zypher666: I'm just asking questions people never answer for me.

[20:32] zypher666: They dance, but they don't answer.

[20:32] zypher666: Who are those extra people though?

[20:32] zypher666: I had no say in it. I reject them.

[20:33] zypher666: I would reject them in this society.

[20:33] zypher666: If a bunch of people just starting enforcing rules, I would stand up to them.

[20:33] zypher666: If I had no say in the matter, they have no right to just be enforcing rules.

More nonsense... When I look back at this discussion it was mostly going around in circles with my debating opponent failing to cite any facts proving why I'm wrong. No wonder I had a headache after this discussion...

[20:33] Ken: I forget now which subject we were discussing... murder or rape, but either way, you harmed another and should be held accountable. You forfeited your rights when you harmed someone else.

Getting even more tired I see. Can't even follow the discussion. Of course, it was also his numerous individual posts that were hard to follow and he often inserted ridiculous commentary throughout his “arguments” which made following his train of thought difficult.

[20:33] zypher666: Murder.

[20:33] zypher666: And how did I forfeit anything? I was framed.

[20:33] zypher666: Don't you know no one in jail did it?

[20:34] zypher666: You're just infringing on my rights now, oppression, OPPRESSION!

More nonsense...

[20:34] Ken: Investigators pinned you to the crime. It's not oppression when you break the rules of a society.

Here I give a reasonable response and he continues with his nonsense. He clearly has no understanding of order and obviously no understanding of anarchy.

[20:35] zypher666: I had no part of this tyranny, this fascist state you're trying to create in this awesome anarchy.

[20:35] zypher666: They have a grudge against me for my anti-tyranny stance!

[20:35] zypher666: They're trying to get rid of me! This is the corruption inherent in the system!

[20:35] zypher666: Come see the tyranny inherent in the system!!!

More of the same... I'm beginning to wonder if this “debate” is even worth posting.

[20:35] Ken: It's like today. If you break the rules you will pay the price. But in an anarchist society the rules will focus on actual harm to people, and not U-Turns, or not wearing a seat belt, or drug use.

[20:35] zypher666: Quickly alert Alex Jones!!!

[20:35] zypher666: They're taking me, why?!

[20:35] zypher666: WHY!!!!

[20:35] Ken: If you were found to be guilty of murder.

[20:36] zypher666: I don't know these people, they just kidnapped me, help!

[20:36] zypher666: Who do I go to in this situation?

[20:36] zypher666: Found by who?

[20:37] zypher666: It wasn't murder though!

[20:37] zypher666: My wife was just 3 months pregnant and I'm a gynecologist.

[20:37] zypher666: I gave her an abortion, and these people are going to execute me.

[20:37] zypher666: Please, save me from these Christian fascists!!

[20:37] zypher666: What are you going to do??

More nonsense and no argument nor understanding on his part...

[20:37] Ken: The privatized police force who did an investigation, found there was evidence that you were guilty and then you are punished in some manner.

Another logical, reasonable answer and he continues with his nonsense...

[20:37] zypher666: *my wife was

[20:37] Ken: If we could please stay on topic without your mockery that would be great :)

[20:37] zypher666: But I explicitly signed up with a pro-abortion security firm, and now I'm being jailed and possibly killed because they found an aborted fetus in my garbage.

[20:38] zypher666: This is the topic.

[20:38] zypher666: From the start, I knew this was where it was going.

To looney-ville? Anyone making these kinds of “arguments” against a Christian would be laughed off the stage, but because he is just as brainwashed as any theist he seems to think he's making a point.

[20:38] zypher666: It's murder to someone, but not to me.

[20:38] zypher666: How do you deal with that?

[20:38] Ken: who? what?

[20:38] Ken: Oh I see.

[20:39] zypher666: You said they could call some anonymous authority if i was molesting kids, what if that anonymous authority is anti-abortion?

[20:39] zypher666: I guess in anarchy, everyone just agrees with us?

[20:39] zypher666: But then, why have different systems...

[20:39] zypher666: I'm so confused...

Then you ought to actually research the topic rather than ridicule it. Having different systems of law is not any different than what we have today. I could just as easily accuse his government of being stupid because different states have different laws. What about the absurd situations where you have states that legalize marijuana but it's still a crime at the federal level?! In the same jurisdiction something can be both illegal and legal at the same time! Wrap your head around that one. But then, he'd probably just agree that it's a dumb law and miss my point entirely.

[20:41] Ken: The point is that people will be held accountable for their actions like today. In an anarchist society a person will have a choice of what rules they want to live under. Logically speaking, any society that allows murder will not be around long. Therefore, these kinds of acts will be weeded out naturally.

[20:41] zypher666: Do my kids only go to school with kids of a certain security firm brand?

[20:41] zypher666: Like, do all the A kids go to school with the B kids?

[20:41] zypher666: And do the B kids realize they aren't as good as the A kids?

[20:41] zypher666: And they both laugh at those poor D kids.

[20:41] zypher666: Whose school has a dirt floor.

[20:41] zypher666: D is for dumb, they're say.

[20:41] zypher666: And they will be, because they're all poor.

[20:41] zypher666: And the poor people banded together still won't work, like now, while the rich will be fine...

[20:41] zypher666: [I'll shut up now]

Yes, please.

[20:41] zypher666: People aren't held accountable today, though, unless it is brought to someone's attention.

[20:41] zypher666: People get away with things all the time.

More nonsense “objections.”

[20:42] Ken: In addition, my point is that the government isn't needed to enforce any of this as private services can be used.

[20:42] zypher666: So how do we stop the Christians from enslaving us?

[20:42] zypher666: They outnumber us about 4 to 1.

[20:42] Ken: Yes, people get away with things. I never said an anarchy would be perfect, without any problems.

[20:42] zypher666: I know you wouldn't claim something so silly.

[20:42] Ken: If they did I say fight back.

[20:43] zypher666: Yeah, you fight... let me know how it goes.

[20:43] zypher666: I am not going to fight for atheism.

[20:43] zypher666: That sort of defeats the whole purpose.

More pointless commentary. People defend themselves all the time from attacks in their home, and private security could be hired to patrol your home or neighborhood (with the consent of the others who lived there) if you felt there was a realistic threat. The fact of the matter is, religious individuals use the state to force their views on others. Without one, there would be no apparatus of control for them to use. In an anarchy they'll just be viewed as simple-minded nutcases by the majority of society, and even other Christians. The religious right is a minority after all so even if his scenario actually happened, their numbers are such that they couldn't force their religion on the entire population. A Barna study from June 25, 2001 concluded that only 8% of the population could be considered “evangelical,” which are usually the Christians who seek to force their views on others.

[20:43] Ken: Well, we have about ten more minutes. Then I have to get to bed. Anything else you'd like to discuss?

[20:43] zypher666: I'll wish you luck though.

[20:43] zypher666: I hope you pull it out.

[20:44] zypher666: How do you imagine slavery would end in an anarchy?

[20:45] zypher666: Well, let me make that more fair: how would you combat slavery in an anarchy?

[20:45] zypher666: I can't expect anarchy to solve the problem perfectly.

[20:46] Ken: Slavery is obviously wrong and it violates Prime. Unless, of course, a person is imprisoned to pay back a victim for restitution. Then they are released. The victim can also forgo punishment if they wish as well.

[20:46] Ken: Well, slavery is in existence right now. You work and the government takes your money. Is that not slavery?

[20:46] Ken: There would be no involuntary taxes in an anarchy.

[20:46] zypher666: So you want to create a labor incentive for imprisoning people?

[20:46] zypher666: Well, there is actual slavery still, too.

[20:47] zypher666: There are more slaves now than at any time in the 19th century.

[20:47] Ken: Yes, that's true.

[20:47] zypher666: You think prisoners should work hard labor?

[20:47] zypher666: You didn't say so, but you sorta kinda implied it, so I'll ask.

[20:47] Ken: Labor incentive? No, it's as a punishment in order to pay restitution for a victim. And only if the victim wants to be payed back for violation of his/her rights.

[20:48] zypher666: Right, but courts turn into prisoner factories when there is a profit incentive to imprison people.

How is this an objection to anarchy? It happens now with government. Just read The Perpetual Prisoner Machine, by Joel Dyer. Once again, work prisons can compete on a free market and those that treat people fairly will out shine the bad ones. An independent watchdog agency can also check the prisons to ensure things are running smoothly and ethically.

[20:48] zypher666: And free labor is a huge incentive.

[20:49] Ken: Yes, I'm aware that privatized prisons influence the laws now in order to imprison more people to make more money.

[20:49] zypher666: But that will magically end under anarchy?

[20:50] Ken: With private companies, again, on a free market, it's known now who does these things and an aware group can forgo the use of any work prisons that practice this.

[20:50] zypher666: And they also influence the court room, not just the laws.

[20:50] zypher666: Judges have been paid off, most notably in Pennsylvania, to send people to extended prison stays for minor offenses.

[20:50] Ken: Yeah.

[20:50] zypher666: Can forgo?

[20:50] zypher666: Can?

[20:50] zypher666: Why would they?

[20:50] zypher666: "I want to pay more for labor..."

[20:51] Ken: Like I said, it's up to the victim if the person is even put to work. An aware group and get the word out and refuse to use that particular work prison.

[20:51] zypher666: I hear companies say that all the time.

[20:51] Ken: An aware group can get the word out...*

[20:51] zypher666: Get the word out, lol.

Ridicule isn't an argument and were the banks who were responsible for the banking crisis not exposed? Now people are acting against them and doing what they can in their rigged system by taking their money out of the banks responsible with Bank Transfer Day. Things can and will get out. It happens all the time. Another non-argument by him.

[20:51] Ken: Abusive practices are exposed all the time and people can take action.

[20:51] zypher666: You know, for someone who doesn't trust that the government can do anything right, you have so much faith in the free market and human nature.

It's not “faith” in anything. There is much empirical evidence proving the reliability of the free market system and scientific knowledge of how people react in certain situations (like Game Theory).

[20:52] zypher666: Even though it's human nature that ruins the government.

[20:52] Ken: Even now, people do this.

[20:52] zypher666: And private industry, for that matter.

[20:52] Ken: It's ultimately the power that's the issue. Not human nature entirely.

[20:52] zypher666: I think you're just cutting out the middle man.

[20:53] zypher666: "We don't need these people who are elected... we can just cut to the chase and let private individuals oppress people directly."

[20:53] zypher666: That's what I hear.

[20:53] zypher666: Here's my problem: I hate corporations.

[20:53] zypher666: Not as much as you hate the government, but still.

[20:53] zypher666: I hate corporations, because when a corporation does something, I have no recourse.

[20:53] Ken: I agree that issues can and would occur even with private companies, but my argument is that people are able to force a companies hand through boycotts and other actions to reduce their influence, etc. You cannot do this with government.

[20:54] zypher666: Right, you can't control the government...

[20:54] zypher666: If only we had some system where we could choose who ran the country...

More ridicule. The current system must be changed because it's obviously not working. His democratic faith sounds nice but practical experience proves it doesn't work. All presidential candidates are cut from the same cloth and attack the freedoms and rights of people. It doesn't matter which political party they belong to. Just look at how Obama has allowed to continue most of the programs George Bush Jr. started that are unfair to the people.

[20:54] Ken: You can't now because these companies often use government to stop you. Make laws that make it more difficult to stop them, etc.

[20:55] Ken: LOL Put someone in power over you and watch them abuse it. It's been proven over and over again.

[20:57] zypher666: Without the government, they could just do all of the things they needed to corrupt the government to do.

[20:57] zypher666: They would just dump waste anywhere.

[20:57] zypher666: They would put anything they want in food.

[20:57] zypher666: Give someone power and allow no means of taking it away, and they'll do much worse.

[20:57] zypher666: You can't take power away from private individuals without a government.

[20:57] zypher666: You can call it something else, but it's government.

[20:57] zypher666: It may not be elected, or elected in a sham system, but it's government.

[20:57] zypher666: Have you worked in a large company?

[20:57] zypher666: [If we're approaching time, lemme know]

[20:59] Ken: This will be the last bit. As I said a government is the coercive entity that monopolizes land and resources, and often controls the economy. Having a form of enforcement and organization isn't a government, even by definition.

[20:59] zypher666: So if a private company owned all the land, how would you feel?

[20:59] zypher666: Because I think you just invented feudalism, if you like that idea.

[21:00] Ken: Are they a coercive entity or based on contracts? I agree that monopolizing land could be an issue and I believe a person or group could enter into a society that limited how much land you could own. It would have to be agreed to of course.

[21:00] zypher666: I like this... you took only what you don't like and called it "government," and all the other stuff you do like... I don't know if you have a name for it, but you consider it part of anarchy.

Sorry, but you're clearly confused. I give an accurate definition of government below.

[21:01] zypher666: So when (sorry, I mean if) private entities oppress people, you'll be against that too?

[21:01] Ken: Government are coercive. There would not be coercive actions in an anarchy. There would not be forced taxes to "feed" anything that resembled a government.

[21:02] zypher666: Can I ask one last question?

[21:02] Ken: You can believe any form of force is akin to government but that's clearly not true.

[21:03] zypher666: What if I can't/won't buy into this system?

[21:03] zypher666: By which I mean, what if I won't pay a private security firm, or can't afford even the cheapest one?

[21:03] zypher666: Who enforces laws for/against me?

[21:03] Ken: There are enforcement systems in place even with places without a central authority, making your argument inaccurate.

[21:04] zypher666: What places has no central authority?

[21:04] Ken: The anarchys I've discussed from earlier.

[21:04] zypher666: But they all have "central" authorities, or prime one.

[21:04] zypher666: They all have authorities at the top.

[21:04] Ken: No they don't. Show me a central authority in Somalia.

[21:05] zypher666: If you commit a crime, you will be taken to a local chieftain.

[21:05] zypher666: Central authority.

[21:05] zypher666: It's just at a tribal level.

[21:05] zypher666: And the smallest authority sphere is the family, going all the way up to global.

[21:06] zypher666: If there was no tribe, you'd be taken to the oldest male in the area.

[21:06] Ken: He simply enforces the rules which everyone agrees not to do. A government is active in the economy, the peoples' lives.

[21:06] zypher666: You don't think the elders of a tribe affect those things?

[21:06] Ken: Again, what you're describing is a form of order and enforcement. That's not the same thing as government.

[21:06] zypher666: You don't think the elders chide the young and direct commerce?

According to even the U.S. government, in a report titled “Patterns of Global Terrorism” Somalia has “no one group currently able to govern the entire country […] and an inability to monitor the financial sector.” (Terrorism and Tyranny, by James Bovard; 90) Clearly, no single group is dealing with these issues, therefore, it's not a government. In addition, according to somaliawatch.org,

“Subjugation and blind obedience to a leader is not part of the Somali character. Access to a leader is unfettered. In fact it may be unique to Somalis that when Somalia leader of sort, traditional or bastardized such as warlords (in the sense of being neither traditional nor truly modern) addresses his own kinsmen his place of stay teams with people of all walks of life with unhindered and equal access to the leader. This is inbuilt culture of equality has been part and parcel of the Somali character for centuries.”

No one has unrestricted power or authority over another. This isn't government. Even the website I quoted the above paragraph from said they had no government!

[21:07] zypher666: It is government.

Once again, no.

[21:07] zypher666: Even student council is government.

Oh, that's hilarious! You're playing fast and loose with your definitions and I find that to be borderline dishonest.

[21:07] zypher666: Even though they don't have any real power.

[21:07] zypher666: But okay, it's not government, how do you deal with people outside the system?

[21:08] zypher666: Suppose I'm too poor or not interested in paying a private security firm.

[21:08] zypher666: I'm either disabled and unable to work or find anyone to help me, so I live in a drainage pipe under the highway.

[21:08] zypher666: Or, I live in a cabin with dozens of guns, so I don't want your security.

[21:09] zypher666: Both of those are people I've met before, so it's not just hypothetical.

[21:10] Ken: Let me give you a definition of government. "A parasitic organization monopolizing order on a given territory using the process of legitimized coercion. Takes over markets coercively and generally in a monopolistic fashion." None of the examples you give come close to fitting that description.

[21:11] zypher666: You just defined Wal-Mart

I think this is one of the most absurd things he said during the entire discussion. It's mindbogglingly naive. Is Walmart a “parasitic organization monopolizing order on a given territory?” No. They do not make the laws or try to 'enforce order.' They also do not steal money from you (as in taxes). Do they take over markets coercively in a monopolistic fashion? Again, no. They do not have a monopoly.

[21:11] Ken: Walmart is not forcing you to pay them...

[21:11] Ken: The government is.

[21:11] zypher666: That isn't who they coerce.

[21:11] zypher666: They coerce people like music labels.

[21:12] zypher666: They force them to edit their music, not by government order, but by private censorship.

This is not an example of controlling a market with regulations or other means. They aren't forcing all stores to carry censored music. It only affects their store, not the market as a whole.

[21:12] zypher666: You know, for the better good,

[21:12] Ken: Walmart cannot steal your land...without the power of the government of course, if they decide they like the spot where your home located for their new store.

[21:12] zypher666: And since Wal-Mart is the single largest seller of CDs, they get their way through coercion.

[21:13] zypher666: And many other of their business practices are anti-free market and abusive

[21:13] Ken: And there are other stores you can buy CD's at. They do not monopolize the sell of CDs

[21:13] zypher666: But I have nothing against them besides the censorship.

[21:13] zypher666: Actually they run many vendors out of business.

[21:14] Ken: I agree I don't like it. I once bought a CD from a Target that was censored and they didn't even notify me that was the case. I do not buy Cd's from there anymore.

[21:14] zypher666: Yeah Target too.

[21:14] zypher666: Fuck them.

[21:14] Ken: But again, they don't monopolize the selling of cd's.

[21:14] zypher666: You can't leave the country?

[21:14] zypher666: I mean, please stay.

[21:15] zypher666: I don't want you to go.

[21:15] zypher666: But, if you hate it so much, in theory, this isn't Soviet Russia.

[21:15] Ken: I think that's all I have time for.

[21:15] zypher666: You wouldn't even have to climb a wall... for now.

[21:15] zypher666: Okay.

[21:15] zypher666: Thanks for your patience [...]




I don't doubt for a second that there will still be issues in an anarchy. However, people will have more freedoms, be unencumbered by government nonsense, and most importantly, rather than having competing groups scrambling for control of the government and passing unethical laws and regulations upon people, all groups can instead discuss the facts and rationale of a proposed law instead of having it forced down their throats without consent. Allow facts, rather than brute force, to decide policies, which is exactly what we now have and I'm sure everyone can see the dangers. Corporations bribe governments and force laws on people; governments invade peoples' lives and privacy, and pass immoral and pointless laws that people had no hand in crafting, much less agreed to them.

Yes, as my debating partner made very clear private companies could also do this. However, my point, is that it will be truly seen as wrong and a private company will not have unlimited power to do what they want without consequences. Of course, this obviously raises the question of how enforcement of these restrictions by these companies will occur and I say by the people themselves. The people are the market! Yes, this means there will be no “nanny state” government to coddle all of the people and it will force them to take control of their own lives and allow them to solve their own problems, but I do not see this as a bad thing at all, nor is it an impossible dream like opponents of anarchism make it out to be. As I've said throughout this piece there is empirical evidence of this form of organization’s effectiveness.

I was hoping for a well-reasoned and rational discussion about the issues and unfortunately all I received from Bret was silly nonsense, ridicule, and ridiculous “just so” stories without a shred of empirical evidence for his positions.