What is Anarchy?

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

States have existed for a tiny proportion of time as man did. All states fail. they might be replaced by a state but all states still fail.

Considering every achievement attributable to man in the historic era occurred under what we might term a primitive state, your argument is utterly pathetic.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea how you can do a poll of peoples thoughts.

You claimed that the numbers of anarcho-capitalists are increasing and then claim that you cannot do a poll of people's thoughts?
Sorry, I'm not putting much store in that. If you wish to claim that anarchist numbers are rising, it is up to you to cite your claim.

Hazlittle wrote: »

The Irish Liberty Forum and the Freeman movement didnt exist last year and they exist now. Thats over a thousand more anarchists in existence that didnt before.

What a strange argument; "THe ILF and FM were founded. Therefore, 1000 anarchists came into existance".
Are you saying they weren't anarchists before the ILF was founded?

Hazlittle wrote: »

There is a Tibetan document that supports the idea that man will return to his lawless state. By the looks of things I can see the status quo collapsing in 10 years.

A Tibetan document? It must be true.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I gave brief sumaries of my argument which wasnt good enough then I gave book examples. I'm not an experienced keyboard warrior so I dont undersdtand how these arguments are suspose to be won.

It's nothing to do with being a keyboard warrior. It's to do with engaging in a rational argument.
Your argument summaries were basically unstubstantiated opinions with occasional links to libertarian websites (and you did not link to releveant parts. Fair enough if you insist on using these but if your claims were as self-evident as you seem to think, then surely you would have no problem finding neutral sources which reinforce your claims.

For example, in arguing against your stylised accounts of early-medieval Ireland, I did not merely say "Read Ó Cróinín". I went through the book myself, highlighting the relevant information to disprove the idea that early-Medieval Ireland was anything but a hierarchical, patriarchal society who's members did not only have to worry about foreign raiders but also the members of the neighbouring tuatha.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I didnt give you theoretical books. I gave you history books.

Name one history book you have directed me to. So far, all you've done is posted links to libertarian websites. (Unless I have missed a genuine history book you have cited, in which case I apologise)
I have already argued against your claims that Early Medieval Ireland was more peaceful than other kingdoms at the times (using neutral history books for the purpose). You chose not to respond to this. That's fine but you can hardly expect me to take your claims seriously on the matter.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Anarcho-capitalists I know dont talk changing human naure.

Grand, so are you claiming that human nature would mean that if the state was abolished tomorrow, that things would quickly turn out great?

Hazlittle wrote: »

Spocieties have existed without states as you have been given the info on. Either read the books or Google it yourself. States dont last very long in comparison to lawlessness.

Once again, you resort to the cowards way out; "Read books". You make no attempt to substantiate your arguments and merely demand others read books rather than try and come up with a coherent argument yourself.

I have already gone against your claims that either Somalia or Early Medieval Ireland were/are better places to live than other regions with central authority.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough. However, I don't think human nature has changed enough from those days to enable us to have changed from such mentalities.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would disagree here. I fundamentally disagree with libertarianism, however, I would see them as much more realistic than anarchists (be they anarco-syndicalists or anarcho-capitalists) in that they achknowledge one of the most crucial organisations for humanity. That of a state. While I would disagree with minarchists ideas on what the state should do, we would both agree that the state has a vital role to play in areas that the private sector would be hard pressed to provide for (taking care of those citizens who for whatever reason, are unable to defend themselves).

I suppose it's the same difference between me and certain brands of socialists. THey might see a long gradualist move from our current state to socialism, with social democracy progressively transforming society with full-on socialism as a logical concluding point.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, there is a difference in an idea in practice and the same idea in theory.
Anarchism in practice (to my knowledge) has been one of chaos, barbarism and the rule of the stronger man.
But if you really believe that it can still work in theory then that's sound, I can hardly argue against your personal beliefs!

titan18

Wouldn't really know too much about this stuff, so forgive any ignorance but would Mondragon,Freetown Christiania and some parts of Somalia be a success.

Ataxia

Ok, so there's several issues that keep coming up in this thread:

Right-wing libertarianism

"Anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with the struggle for liberation from coercion and domination. The idea that one can have a free society in which the basic institutions of production and distribution are controlled by private tyrannies is self-evidently fatuous. Rothbardism is just an attempt to steal our clothes, all the while defending the hegemony of violent and oppressive institutions.

Anarchists are all just bored middle class kids

That's both false and irrelevant. In Ireland, anarchism hasn't made a huge inroads in working-class consciousness, admittedly, but in Greece for example, there is a huge and genuinely working-class anarchist resistance. The Irish anarchists I know are basically divided fairly evenly between student-types and union activists. In any case, I think just because someone is a middle-class student doesn't make their struggles irrelevant. Modern capitalism is more subtle than the capitalism of Marx's time; in the West, they have learned that giving us a small bit of affluence will make us think we're all middle class, and thus that our objective class interest is with capitalism, rather than anarchism/communism/whatever. However, middle class people are very much still victims of capitalism; our experience of capitalism is not poverty, but rather empty consumerism, isolated social relations, the separation of an individual from his creative output, etc.

Anarchy never worked

Not true. There have been very few examples of genuinely anarchistic societies. The best examples are probably the Paris Commune and the CNT/FAI controlled areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. In both cases, the anarchist societies were destroyed from the outside by violence, rather than through any internal instability.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

I suppose I should clear up this misconception.

Message received.

Denerick wrote: »

Anarchism on the other hand certainly is a utopian idealogy (Anarcho-Capitalism or otherwise) as it seems to think non coercion will result in greater living standards.

Is that not a central tenet of small government libertarianism?

Ataxia wrote: »

O
"Anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with the struggle for liberation from coercion and domination.

How so? Could you expand on this point?

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Is that not a central tenet of small government libertarianism?

Libertarianism (Should it recognise the need for a judicial system) does recognise that coercion is a fact of life and that without it people will infringe on others liberty. It is impossible to guarantee any modicum of liberty without some degree of coercion - and hence, paradoxically, infringement of ones personal liberty.

Ataxia

Valmont wrote: »

How so? Could you expand on this point?

Because capitalism is inherently coercive and repressive. True anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

Because capitalism is inherently coercive and repressive. True anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist.

How do you hope to achieve a state of non coercion by enforcing non coercion?

Ataxia

Denerick wrote: »

How do you hope to achieve a state of non coercion by enforcing non coercion?

I think workers should seize control of their workplaces and communities and run them democratically and non-hierarchically. If you consider that kind of expropriation coercive, I don't particularly mind, because I think a degree of coercion/violence is legitimate in overthrowing a considerably more violent system.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

I think workers should seize control of their workplaces and communities and run them democratically and non-hierarchically. If you consider that kind of expropriation coercive, I don't particularly mind, because I think a degree of coercion/violence is legitimate in overthrowing a considerably more violent system.

Then you are not an anarchist, and shouldn't claim to be one.

Ataxia

Denerick wrote: »

Then you are not an anarchist, and shouldn't claim to be one.

Whatever, I don't particularly care what some capitalist apologist thinks is a legitimate revolutionary strategy.

sensibleken

man theres a lot of rules to being an anarchist!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

Whatever, I don't particularly care what some capitalist apologist thinks is a legitimate revolutionary strategy.

I've never been called a capitalist apologist before. The left do come up with the most entertaining polemics!

But bottom line - if you think coercion is a solution, then you are not an anarchist and should stop calling yourself one.

Lockstep

Denerick wrote: »

I've never been called a capitalist apologist before. The left do come up with the most entertaining polemics!

But bottom line - if you think coercion is a solution, then you are not an anarchist and should stop calling yourself one.

I wouldn't worry about it. At various points I've been accused of more extreme leftists of having betrayed my working class roots, being a trendy liberal, being pro-fascism, being a misogynist/being anti-women and anti-feminist, being a right-wing gun freak and being a general bigot.
I get accused of being the opposite by rightists. Mudslinging is part and parcel of politics.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, I never criticized you Apologies if you got that impression.
I was merely pointing out that it is nigh on impossible to claim that a theory can be proven impractical in theory. Both socialism and anarchism fall afoul of human nature, in theory, both can sidestep accusations of being unrealistic by claiming that all is needed is a leap of faith.
Anarchists can claim that humanity can progressively learn to live without the state, socialists can claim that they can progressively learn to live without the market.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I still have yet to see how the calculation problem is unworkable in theory.
Outlined above.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hmm yeah, the question is will we ever be able to transcend this. I remain skeptical that this will ever be the case, given that human nature is so deeply ingrained.

Denerick

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it. At various points I've been accused of more extreme leftists of having betrayed my working class roots, being a trendy liberal, being pro-fascism, being a misogynist/being anti-women and anti-feminist, being a right-wing gun freak and being a general bigot.

Oh, I'm not worried. I just always find it amusing how the left are so dogmatic over mild definitions. As the old saying about the commies go, before the meeting comes the split (Or something like that)

Ataxia

Denerick wrote: »

I've never been called a capitalist apologist before. The left do come up with the most entertaining polemics!

But bottom line - if you think coercion is a solution, then you are not an anarchist and should stop calling yourself one.

The State and capitalism sustain themselves through violence and coercion. I think its legitimate to fight back. What's your alternative.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

The State and capitalism sustain themselves through violence and coercion. I think its legitimate to fight back. What's your alternative.

Did I say I had an alternative? I suppose you might say I have a roughly wishy washy Liberal centrism attitude? I'm just curious why you call yourself an anarchist when you clearly aren't an anarchist.

Ataxia

Denerick wrote: »

Did I say I had an alternative? I suppose you might say I have a roughly wishy washy Liberal centrism attitude? I'm just curious why you call yourself an anarchist when you clearly aren't an anarchist.

I think you're confusing anarchism with pacifism.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

I think you're confusing anarchism with pacifism.

I think you're confusing anarchism with authoritarian communism.

Valmont

Ataxia wrote: »

The State and capitalism sustain themselves through violence and coercion. I think its legitimate to fight back. What's your alternative.

Alternative? Stop conflating statism with capitalism and you have your answer right there.

Ataxia

Valmont wrote: »

Alternative? Stop conflating statism with capitalism and you have your answer right there.

I'm not conflating anything, I think they're different but inter-related forms of tyranny.

Ataxia

Denerick wrote: »

I think you're confusing anarchism with authoritarian communism.

*Sigh* Complete ignorance of history and anarchist theory is too tiresome to continue dealing with.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

*Sigh* Complete ignorance of history and anarchist theory is too tiresome to continue dealing with.

I bow to your mighty intellect, wise one.

Hazlittle

HavingCrack wrote: »

Lots of people died because they were attempting to fight a war at the same time against people who wanted to destroy anarchism, people didn't die because it was an anarchist collective, in fact the collectives themselves were extremely successful. Your argument doesn't really wash with me.



Considering they were attempting to fight a war at the same time against people who wanted to destroy anarchism I'd say it has to be considered relatively successful.

Still failed to exist for a single life time. I'm not getting into a Spanish Civil war but anarchists were fairly disordered when it came to fighting bar that one squadron that I cant remember its name. They attempted with violence to assert their ideology on others and were met with people trying to assert their lifestyle on them.

Denerick wrote: »

Considering every achievement attributable to man in the historic era occurred under what we might term a primitive state, your argument is utterly pathetic.

Art, science and education are the creation of states?

titan18 wrote: »

Wouldn't really know too much about this stuff, so forgive any ignorance but would Mondragon,Freetown Christiania and some parts of Somalia be a success.

I wouldnt consider Christiania a success but more successful than the Spanish anarchistt movement.

Ataxia wrote: »

Ok, so there's several issues that keep coming up in this thread:

Right-wing libertarianism

"Anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with the struggle for liberation from coercion and domination. The idea that one can have a free society in which the basic institutions of production and distribution are controlled by private tyrannies is self-evidently fatuous. Rothbardism is just an attempt to steal our clothes, all the while defending the hegemony of violent and oppressive institutions.

Rothbard doesnt support any form of institution except some banking regulationns randomly. To me I find it odd that an anarchists can request what form of private law they can have.

Ataxia wrote: »

Whatever, I don't particularly care what some capitalist apologist thinks is a legitimate revolutionary strategy.

Not a military strategist but violence is abhorence to my libertarian philosophy. I favour the non-violence of the Amish movements. Ignore the state and it will go away.

Ataxia wrote: »

*Sigh* Complete ignorance of history and anarchist theory is too tiresome to continue dealing with.

It is very annoying hence I dont bother argueing with kickoutthejams anymore. I cant read and write English very well so instead I refer to books. Apparently thats not good enough. Like I dont need to point out that the existence of pirates on the sea has nothing to do with the social system on the land or that the violent regions in Somalia are the ones were people are emulating a state. Or that the violence in Celtic Ireland was nothing compared to the expansion of Roman empire. Or explain the big bang theory or evolution.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

It is very annoying hence I dont bother argueing with kickoutthejams anymore.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I cant read and write English very well so instead I refer to books.

The forum doesn't demand perfect English (I went to secondary school abroad so my own level is far from perfect)
As long as you can back your arguments up and type in a coherent manner, nobody will have any issue.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Apparently thats not good enough. Like I dont need to point out that the existence of pirates on the sea has nothing to do with the social system on the land

The BBC would disagree with you;
"The long-standing absence of authority in the country has led to Somali pirates becoming a major threat to international shipping in the area, and has prompted Nato to take the lead in an anti-piracy operation. "

Hazlittle wrote: »

or that the violent regions in Somalia are the ones were people are emulating a state.

Or, they show the kind of groups that will take control in the abscence of a liberal democratic state.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Or that the violence in Celtic Ireland was nothing compared to the expansion of Roman empire.

You're comparing a tiny, fractured country to the an empire at the time. Interesting.
In Ireland, violence was endemic and a way of life. I have pointed this out numerous times but you keep on avoiding this and have completely failed to back up your claims.
Frankly I'd rather have lived under the Romans than in Gaelic Ireland. At least then I'd have to worry a lot less about my neighbours killing me and stealing my cattle.

HavingCrack

Ataxia wrote: »

Anarchy never worked

Not true. There have been very few examples of genuinely anarchistic societies. The best examples are probably the Paris Commune and the CNT/FAI controlled areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. In both cases, the anarchist societies were destroyed from the outside by violence, rather than through any internal instability.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

You put my original point across far better than I could about the CNT .

Hazlittle wrote: »

Still failed to exist for a single life time. I'm not getting into a Spanish Civil war but anarchists were fairly disordered when it came to fighting bar that one squadron that I cant remember its name. They attempted with violence to assert their ideology on others and were met with people trying to assert their lifestyle on them.

They failed to exist for a single life time because fascists, communists, socialists, the Spanish army etc etc was committed to the destruction of the anarchist communes regardless of which side won the war. I'll agree that the anarchists were utterly useless at fighting with the exception of the Durretti Column (who I presume you're referring to) due to their hatred of obeying orders. Attempting to fight a war and refusing to take orders from anyone was a recipe for disaster as you can imagine and eventually led to the Events of May where the Communists effectively destroyed the CNT-FAI to bring their anti-statist tendencies under control.

The CNT generally didn't force people into the collectives they established in the countryside. Usually the poorer peasants collectivised their farms while the wealthier farmers property rights were respected. However there were isolated instances were forced collectivisation occured but these were extremely rare. Anthony Beevor's book 'The Battle for Spain' discusses this issue in some depth if I recall.

The Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Civil War are a worthy topic of discussion in their own thread so this is the last time I'll mention them in this one.

titan18

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The BBC would disagree with you;
"The long-standing absence of authority in the country has led to Somali pirates becoming a major threat to international shipping in the area, and has prompted Nato to take the lead in an anti-piracy operation. "

Isn't it said that the piracy exists through illegal fishing and the dumping of waste in their waters, and that a lot of the pirates are ex-fisherman?

Valmont

Ataxia wrote: »

*Sigh* Complete ignorance of history and anarchist theory is too tiresome to continue dealing with.

Explain it to us then, please. I'm sure Denerick is correct.

Lockstep

titan18 wrote: »

Isn't it said that the piracy exists through illegal fishing and the dumping of waste in their waters, and that a lot of the pirates are ex-fisherman?

Yes, there is truth in this; [url=http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/March/20100322131130WCyeroC0.5743219.html[/url]
“It is not hard in a place like Somalia,” where there is high unemployment and a lack of economic opportunity, “to find young men who are willing to risk their lives in an unfamiliar environment — the sea — in an unfamiliar enterprise — hostage taking for ransom — and who face the risk of violence or being apprehended and put in jail.”[/url]
When this is combined with a lack of a coast guard to stop them, it is easy to see why piracy is taken up.

I remember reading one case where a Somali pirate was thrilled that he was going to be tried in the Netherlands, as conditions in a Dutch jail would be a dream come true for him, given how terrible Somalia was/

Hazlittle

HavingCrack wrote: »

You put my original point across far better than I could about the CNT .



They failed to exist for a single life time because fascists, communists, socialists, the Spanish army etc etc was committed to the destruction of the anarchist communes regardless of which side won the war. I'll agree that the anarchists were utterly useless at fighting with the exception of the Durretti Column (who I presume you're referring to) due to their hatred of obeying orders. Attempting to fight a war and refusing to take orders from anyone was a recipe for disaster as you can imagine and eventually led to the Events of May where the Communists effectively destroyed the CNT-FAI to bring their anti-statist tendencies under control.

The CNT generally didn't force people into the collectives they established in the countryside. Usually the poorer peasants collectivised their farms while the wealthier farmers property rights were respected. However there were isolated instances were forced collectivisation occured but these were extremely rare. Anthony Beevor's book 'The Battle for Spain' discusses this issue in some depth if I recall.

The Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Civil War are a worthy topic of discussion in their own thread so this is the last time I'll mention them in this one.

I'll write that book down and read it sometime. But as I understand They took over companies and churches that werent theirs. I consider that violence. As I said before I deal society is a more liberal version of the Amish culture. I abhor violence.

titan18 wrote: »

Isn't it said that the piracy exists through illegal fishing and the dumping of waste in their waters, and that a lot of the pirates are ex-fisherman?

They could pay the so called war mongers to stop them. But no.

Avgas

Hazlittle wrote: »

Still failed to exist for a single life time. I'm not getting into a Spanish Civil war but anarchists were fairly disordered when it came to fighting bar that one squadron that I cant remember its name.

Actually the Anarachist contribution to the Republican defence of Spain was more mixed....at the lower tactical level...company level...their units tended to be quite good....highly motivated.....but of course they were often reluctant to play a fuller part in bigger set-piece operations....had fierce rivalry with Communists..and they lacked military experience in what could be termed field tactics ..one thing they were 'good' at was making and supplying their own arms and logistics.. Chomsky points this out in a book by examining Basque anarchist munitions factories.......at least relatively they were well organized....but there was in some units....a tendency towards ill discipline....leaving the front on self-granted leave...(AWOL)...etc.

Bizarrely, it seems, the anarchists never made much of an attempt to develop guerrilla tactics..which originated in Spain during the Penisular war. .....but by early 1937 they were arming themselves up for the coming showdown with their real enemy...the Communist Party.

Reformed TrotskyX

No Gods....

No Masters...

simple but fundamentally true...

Denerick

Reformed TrotskyX wrote: »

No Gods....

No Masters...

simple but fundamentally true...

How will there be no Gods? Are anarchists going to enforce the death of religion too? There seems to be quite a lot of coercion involved with being an anarchist.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

How will there be no Gods? Are anarchists going to enforce the death of religion too? There seems to be quite a lot of coercion involved with being an anarchist.

You have been given the difference between the main schools of anarchy. Obvious the anti-religion slant from collectivist anarchy contradicts the individualist anarchist view that epopel are free to believe what they want to believe.

The majority of anarchists are non-coercive.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

You have been given the difference between the main schools of anarchy. Obvious the anti-religion slant from collectivist anarchy contradicts the individualist anarchist view that epopel are free to believe what they want to believe.

The majority of anarchists are non-coercive.

You are not an anarchist if you believe that people can be prohibited from exchanging goods and services for a mutually agreed upon price, or if you believe peoples personal beliefs should be regulated by the local community. That is microtyranny, and microtyranny is often the most offensive. As most people are idiots.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

How will there be no Gods? Are anarchists going to enforce the death of religion too? There seems to be quite a lot of coercion involved with being an anarchist.

It's a contradiction so glaringly obvious that I really don't know how so many people can just gloss over it.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

You are not an anarchist if you believe that people can be prohibited from exchanging goods and services for a mutually agreed upon price, or if you believe peoples personal beliefs should be regulated by the local community. That is microtyranny, and microtyranny is often the most offensive. As most people are idiots.

There's no point arguing in this thread if you arent able to read the material provided.

I have already stated I oppose violence and forcing people to do things. If you read the link I gave you will read that one school of anarchist thought, the individualist, support free markets and freedom of religion.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

There's no point arguing in this thread if you arent able to read the material provided.

I have already stated I oppose violence and forcing people to do things. If you read the link I gave you will read that one school of anarchist thought, the individualist, support free markets and freedom of religion.

Seriously, what kind of tangent are you on? I've read plenty about anarchism, I don't need to supplement my reading with quasi-religious propaganda.

Valmont

Hazlittle wrote: »

I have already stated I oppose violence and forcing people to do things. If you read the link I gave you will read that one school of anarchist thought, the individualist, support free markets and freedom of religion.

Are you talking about a sort of anarcho-capitalism?

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

Seriously, what kind of tangent are you on? I've read plenty about anarchism, I don't need to supplement my reading with quasi-religious propaganda.

So you're commenting on a topic you havent read? The Irish Liberty Forum typically dont publish opinion. They report on topics. The article was about anarchy is not if anarchy is a good idea.

Valmont wrote: »

Are you talking about a sort of anarcho-capitalism?

I'm not ideological. I believe violence thus authority is wrong. If the state is remove and we have anarcho-capitalism then so be it. I dont cause harm to others and I would be willing to pay for private security so others cant harm me.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

I believe violence thus authority is wrong. If the state is remove and we have anarcho-capitalism then so be it. I dont cause harm to others and I would be willing to pay for private security so others cant harm me.

How will private security protect you without the use of violence? Who will run the private security firm in the absence of authority?

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

How will private security protect you without the use of violence? Who will run the private security firm in the absence of authority?

I'm not very tolerable to these kind of cheeky questions. Obviously I support the right to self defense and voluntary authority i.e. a corporate structure. I've already posted a 20 page PDF explaining how private security firms in the US have been more efficient than federal authorities. Its not a difficult concept to understand. Read it or dont bother me with silly questions.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm not very tolerable to these kind of cheeky questions. Obviously I support the right to self defense and voluntary authority i.e. a corporate structure. I've already posted a 20 page PDF explaining how private security firms in the US have been more efficient than federal authorities. Its not a difficult concept to understand. Read it or dont bother me with silly questions.

Its a sign of a weak argument if you are unable to explain your own position in your own words.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

I've already posted a 20 page PDF explaining how private security firms in the US have been more efficient than federal authorities.

Does your PDF explore the difference between security firms operating within the structures of a state, with laws and law enforcement, and the same security firms operating outside such an environment? Does it consider the possibility of armed security firms competing on a basis other than commercial?

Its not a difficult concept to understand. Read it or dont bother me with silly questions.

This is a discussion forum. If you're not prepared to discuss something, but instead want to brush off all questions with links to external sources, you can get a blog. And you can consider that a moderator instruction.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

Its a sign of a weak argument if you are unable to explain your own position in your own words.

I have had already I dont speak/read/write English well enough so I use others words instead.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does your PDF explore the difference between security firms operating within the structures of a state, with laws and law enforcement, and the same security firms operating outside such an environment? Does it consider the possibility of armed security firms competing on a basis other than commercial? This is a discussion forum. If you're not prepared to discuss something, but instead want to brush off all questions with links to external sources, you can get a blog. And you can consider that a moderator instruction.

I dont dwell on morals, theory or philosophy well. I deal with fact.

Fact-I have no functioning Gardai where I live.
Fact-I am legally restricted so I cant walk around with a gun.
Fact-Owning a gun would increase my defense against those people who illegally have guns.
Fact-State security lead to 50 times more murders than private security in San Fransico.
Fact-Pre state California was less violent before the federal government appeared.
Fact-The creation of state judges led to greater control from organised crime.
Fact-Prohibition gives greater control from organised crime.
Fact-Moderators issuing threats devalues the boards.ie product.
Fact-Devalued enough will lead to less consumer consumption.

Fact-

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

Fact-I have no functioning Gardai where I live.

I must admit, I am very curious as to where you live. I live in the countryside and the nearest Garda station is around 80/90 minutes away on foot and I'm nowhere near scared enough to want to own/carry a gun (albeit I do it with the RDF, though they keep the rifle in the army barracks)
You make it sound as if you live in a place where the Gardai fear to tread.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does your PDF explore the difference between security firms operating within the structures of a state, with laws and law enforcement, and the same security firms operating outside such an environment? Does it consider the possibility of armed security firms competing on a basis other than commercial?

The difference between them operating outside the state would be no different to then any company operating in the private sector. So they would be demand driven.

So as a consumer I would be terrified that some security firm is going to try to stockpile AK-47s hire a load of goons and take over and start taxing people ohhh the horror. So I would demand that for me to invest in this new company I would want certain safety precautions and I would assume so would anybody else. Therefore the entrepreneur that could offer the safest service would get the contract.

Unlike the state where it tells you what service you are going to get and if you dont like it and try to set up your own you will be killed.


What do you mean by other than commercial? Competing to see how many heads they can fit on pikes??