What is Anarchy?

simplistic2

Ataxia wrote: »

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

What is your definition of capitalism?

Denerick

simplistic2 wrote: »

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??

And what do you do if you are poor and are unable to pay the security fee's? Do you call 999 and get asked for your credit card details before you 'order' an armed response unit?

Get real... Honestly.

Denerick

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You make it sound as if you live in a place where the Gardai fear to tread.

I don't believe there is a Garda presence on Tory Island. 80 inbred islanders would be a major threat alright.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

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.

I'm not revealing where I live. But like how naive are you? You're not aware of estates in Dublin that Gardai dont go into? I can start to understand your statist religion. You have no footing with reality.

Denerick wrote: »

And what do you do if you are poor and are unable to pay the security fee's? Do you call 999 and get asked for your credit card details before you 'order' an armed response unit?

Get real... Honestly.

I have already posted these stats. Security is cheap. Like most people pay 12k in taxes. Private security isnt going to cost 12k per head. "How can the poor pay for security?" is as dumb as asking "how can the poor pay for food?"

Denerick wrote: »

I don't believe there is a Garda presence on Tory Island. 80 inbred islanders would be a major threat alright.

I dont think Tory island is inbred. Mostly fruity artists. And I like fruity artists.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I have already posted these stats. Security is cheap. Like most people pay 12k in taxes. Private security isnt going to cost 12k per head. "How can the poor pay for security?" is as dumb as asking "how can the poor pay for food?"

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The poor pay for food from a combination of shít jobs and welfare.

The poor essentially receive a policing service as a subsidy from the rich.

Ignore reality all you like, it isn't going away anytime soon.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm not revealing where I live. But like how naive are you?

You don't live in Supermans house in the North Pole, do you? I could understand if you didn't want to reveal its location. And I'm also confident there are no Guards in the North pole.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

And what do you do if you are poor and are unable to pay the security fee's? Do you call 999 and get asked for your credit card details before you 'order' an armed response unit?

Get real... Honestly.

Clearly the poor are going to be chopped up and fed to the security staff to save on costs.

So you care about the poor great! so you would have no problem donating to a charity that helps the poor or insures them if they suffer a loss.

And who are these lowly poor you speak of? the people that had their jobs destroyed by a reckless government , or the poor that are priced out of a job because of the minimum wage , or the poor that are raped by the judicial system with fines for doing drugs, or the poor that lose their jobs from excessive taxation and regulation....

simplistic2

Ohhh lala

heres some nice stats

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The poor pay for food from a combination of shít jobs and welfare.

The poor essentially receive a policing service as a subsidy from the rich.

Ignore reality all you like, it isn't going away anytime soon.

Lies? Go debunk the stats. I dont like believing in mistruths. Go debunk them. Please.

Why wouldnt the rich continue to subsidies the security like they did in the Wild west?

You sir are the one ignoring the reality. So far no one debunk the facts I presented.

Denerick wrote: »

You don't live in Supermans house in the North Pole, do you? I could understand if you didn't want to reveal its location. And I'm also confident there are no Guards in the North pole.

One can assume I do not live in the North Poll as I have already said I am constitutionally restricted from using a private police force. For funsies try and guess want country has that.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm not revealing where I live. But like how naive are you? You're not aware of estates in Dublin that Gardai dont go into? I can start to understand your statist religion. You have no footing with reality.

Ha, of course these places exist, I'm just not buying that you live in one of these estates. Although my father used to work in North Dublin back in the 80s and Sinn Féin, the Workers Party and Labour were the biggest parties in the areas ravaged by drugs (especially Sinn Féin, for their strongarm tactics against drug dealers) and I doubt their statism would sit well with you.
If you refuse to reveal where you live, that's fine, I can't badger you to reveal overly personal information (although merely saying what region you live is hardly going to mean you have a team of Boardsies knocking at your door)
It just means I don't have to take your posturing seriously.

By the way, I love the way that throughout this thread, you've soapboxed your way through and then accuse others of having no grasp on reality.
Irony!

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

Lies? Go debunk the stats. I dont like believing in mistruths. Go debunk them. Please.

Why wouldnt the rich continue to subsidies the security like they did in the Wild west?

You sir are the one ignoring the reality. So far no one debunk the facts I presented.

Debunk? You've just soapboxed your entire way through. Rather than refuting individual points, you just post various links to libertarian websites and tell others to read them without engaging with what they are saying ("Your claim that Somalia is safer than other African countries is rubbish, look at what the BBC are saying" Rather than saying "But stats from *here* and *here* show that the security rates have been steadily improving", your answers run along the lines of "That's rubbish, read Mises.org"). When others produce facts from impartial sources like the BBC or history books, you just ignore them and keep up your rants.
An incredibly cowardly way out.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ha, of course these places exist, I'm just not buying that you live in one of these estates. Although my father used to work in North Dublin back in the 80s and Sinn Féin, the Workers Party and Labour were the biggest parties in the areas ravaged by drugs (especially Sinn Féin, for their strongarm tactics against drug dealers) and I doubt their statism would sit well with you.
If you refuse to reveal where you live, that's fine, I can't badger you to reveal overly personal information (although merely saying what region you live is hardly going to mean you have a team of Boardsies knocking at your door)
It just means I don't have to take your posturing seriously.

By the way, I love the way that throughout this thread, you've soapboxed your way through and then accuse others of having no grasp on reality.
Irony!

So you admit they exist? I didnt say I lived in an estate. I care not if you believe me. If you dont believe then dont bother argue with me.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

An incredibly cowardly way out.

I dont deal with name callers. Go debate with yourself.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

So you admit they exist?

Oh they exist alright. I just honestly doubt you live in a no-go area.
No-go areas highlight what can happen in the abscence of impartial justice; gangs take over, with the rule of the stronger man.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I didnt say I lived in an estate. I care not if you believe me. If you dont believe then dont bother argue with me.

Whatever lawless place you claim to live then.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I dont deal with name callers. Go debate with yourself.

Frankly, it really feels like I'm debating with myself.
I'm not saying you are a coward, merely that endlessly evading questions on the issue and soapboxing is a cowardly way out itself.

Valmont

Excellent video Simplistic, I would really love to hear a defence of the welfare state based around those atrocious statistics. I had no idea it was even that bad. I see you have Freedomain radio in your signature, it's a great radio show. Molyneux presents excellent arguments and he has likeable persona so I can struggle through the more boring topics.

silverharp

simplistic2 wrote: »

Ohhh lala

heres some nice stats

where does the 2.2m figure come from. isnt there something like 15m americans receiving foodstamps?

simplistic2

silverharp wrote: »

where does the 2.2m figure come from. isnt there something like 15m americans receiving foodstamps?

1. 2005 Welfare Budget - http://tinyurl.com/mpfnmb
2. 2 Million on Welfare - http://tinyurl.com/mkzdlo
3. Charity 85% Efficient - http://tinyurl.com/dokab

It was, and remains to be, very difficult for me to find any actual figures from the government itself on exactly how many families were on some kind of welfare for 2005.

To give an idea of what the maximum number would likely be, we can look at the poverty rate, which is roughly 13% of the population. That would be 39 million people (3M*0.13). Considering that families on average consist of 4 people, that would mean 9.75 million families are below the poverty line (39M/4). Assuming all families under the poverty level are receiving welfare, they should each have received $41,435.90 for that year alone (404B/9.75M).

Assuming the average amount of money made every year from welfare (which again is a tedious figure to find hidden in government psuedostatistics) is $11,000 a year, the government would only have been 27% efficient (11,000/41,435.90).

The very fact that the government refuses to post what their actual efficiency ratings are and force us to estimate instead causes me to think that they know exactly how horrible they are at spending money and are embarrassed to make that figure public.

simplistic2

Valmont wrote: »

Excellent video Simplistic, I would really love to hear a defence of the welfare state based around those atrocious statistics. I had no idea it was even that bad. I see you have Freedomain radio in your signature, it's a great radio show. Molyneux presents excellent arguments and he has likeable persona so I can struggle through the more boring topics.

Yeah after reading his book practical Anarchy there was no turning back!

Scofflaw

simplistic2 wrote: »

1. 2005 Welfare Budget - http://tinyurl.com/mpfnmb
2. 2 Million on Welfare - http://tinyurl.com/mkzdlo
3. Charity 85% Efficient - http://tinyurl.com/dokab

It was, and remains to be, very difficult for me to find any actual figures from the government itself on exactly how many families were on some kind of welfare for 2005.

To give an idea of what the maximum number would likely be, we can look at the poverty rate, which is roughly 13% of the population. That would be 39 million people (3M*0.13). Considering that families on average consist of 4 people, that would mean 9.75 million families are below the poverty line (39M/4). Assuming all families under the poverty level are receiving welfare, they should each have received $41,435.90 for that year alone (404B/9.75M).

Assuming the average amount of money made every year from welfare (which again is a tedious figure to find hidden in government psuedostatistics) is $11,000 a year, the government would only have been 27% efficient (11,000/41,435.90).

The very fact that the government refuses to post what their actual efficiency ratings are and force us to estimate instead causes me to think that they know exactly how horrible they are at spending money and are embarrassed to make that figure public.

Unfortunately, the claim that charities are efficient is largely irrelevant, since it doesn't answer the question of whether in the absence of a public welfare system charity would achieve the same coverage, nor whether charity would be biased in particular directions, nor whether it would be used as a coercive tool. It's not a meaningful comparison, except amongst the charitiies themselves - and even there, charities working in different areas face different issues.

Historically, charity has offered only limited cover, has been biased in particular directions, and has invariably been used as a coercive tool. To appreciate that, one can look at 'development' oriented charities, which offer patchy and frequently completely inappropriate assistance, often biased towards whatever the "issue of the day" is, and not infrequently use their help as a tool for religious conversion or the imposition of particular standards of behaviour (particularly sexual).

Worth reading.

Welfare is a system with a lot of downsides, and a lot of room for inefficiency and gaming the system. However, it's better than the alternative - essentially, having to go on bended knee to your local busybodies - which is why it exists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hazlittle

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the claim that charities are efficient is largely irrelevant, since it doesn't answer the question of whether in the absence of a public welfare system charity would achieve the same coverage, nor whether charity would be biased in particular directions, nor whether it would be used as a coercive tool. It's not a meaningful comparison, except amongst the charitiies themselves - and even there, charities working in different areas face different issues.

Historically, charity has offered only limited cover, has been biased in particular directions, and has invariably been used as a coercive tool. To appreciate that, one can look at 'development' oriented charities, which offer patchy and frequently completely inappropriate assistance, often biased towards whatever the "issue of the day" is, and not infrequently use their help as a tool for religious conversion or the imposition of particular standards of behaviour (particularly sexual).

Worth reading.

Welfare is a system with a lot of downsides, and a lot of room for inefficiency and gaming the system. However, it's better than the alternative - essentially, having to go on bended knee to your local busybodies - which is why it exists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In practical application wealth redistribution doesnt not do what it says on the tin. In theory it sounds nice but in practice it creates bubbles and ghettos.

simplistic2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the claim that charities are efficient is largely irrelevant, since it doesn't answer the question of whether in the absence of a public welfare system charity would achieve the same coverage,

This question is clearly impossible to answer because I have no evidence as to
a. what coverage actually means? (everyone who wants money gets money??)
b. because we do not live in a beautiful free society yet.

Also remember that in free society there is no tax rates and no mindless government regulation and no centralized currency. This environment would foster businesses and create enormous amounts of wealth in society giving the poor a real chance at working for a better standard of living. How many companies would pounce on a corporation tax rate of 0%.

Scofflaw wrote: »

nor whether charity would be biased in particular directions, nor whether it would be used as a coercive tool. It's not a meaningful comparison, except amongst the charitiies themselves - and even there, charities working in different areas face different issues.

Charities will be biased in particular directions whats wrong with that its called specialization.

Coercive tool???? In comparison to what ? The fact that I would be imprisoned or murdered if I refuse to pay for government welfare.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Historically, charity has offered only limited cover, has been biased in particular directions, and has invariably been used as a coercive tool.

Yes the euphemism is social welfare.

Scofflaw wrote: »

To appreciate that, one can look at 'development' oriented charities, which offer patchy and frequently completely inappropriate assistance, often biased towards whatever the "issue of the day" is, and not infrequently use their help as a tool for religious conversion or the imposition of particular standards of behaviour (particularly sexual).

True religious charities often try to indoctrinate the people they are helping so dont give your money to charities that engage in this behavior.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Worth reading.

Americans would have to make at least 10 times the donations they currently give to charity to fully replace government social spending.

AH ha of course they would its pretty expensive to maintain a politicians private jet.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And there is no reason to believe that people who so bitterly hate paying taxes would gladly surrender an equal amount to charity. Arguments that charities can do the job better than government are naïve - most charities are small, highly localized and ill-suited to responding to national disasters or shifting economic trends. About 90 percent of charity funds are both collected and spent locally, which means that rich communities tend to have well-funded charities, and poor communities tend to have poorly funded ones. For this reason, only 10 percent of all charitable donations are directed to the poor. Re-allocating charity donations to the communities that need them most will incur intense political opposition from the communities that fund them.

Of course people hate paying taxes nobody likes to be stolen from and told that theyre too stupid to know how to spend their own money.
And there will be no intense political opposition in a free society.

The fundamental question is always not how a charity in a free society will operate but why should I be murdered for refusing to pay for a government one?

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

Fact-Moderators issuing threats devalues the boards.ie product.

You're contradicting yourself. You've claimed that you accept the requirement for authority in a voluntary context, such as a commercial organisation, but you're rejecting the authority in the voluntary context of this discussion forum.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself. You've claimed that you accept the requirement for authority in a voluntary context, such as a commercial organisation, but you're rejecting the authority in the voluntary context of this discussion forum.

No I'm not. The owners of the website have every right to assert any restrictions they want. But if they go against against the market they will lose.

I support business mens right to make bad decisions.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

No I'm not. The owners of the website have every right to assert any restrictions they want. But if they go against against the market they will lose.

I support business mens right to make bad decisions.

Looking at the rate of growth of this site over the years, the decisions seem to have been pretty sound.

Sure, the rules against soapboxing will keep some people away. But they're not the people we want here anyway. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

Looking at the rate of growth of this site over the years, the decisions seem to have been pretty sound.

Sure, the rules against soapboxing will keep some people away. But they're not the people we want here anyway. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

Are you disputing the fact that business that go against the will of the market dont do so well or are you defending the rules? I was clearly arguing that overly aggressive mods devalues the product regardless of the rules or previous growth.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

Are you disputing the fact that business that go against the will of the market dont do so well or are you defending the rules? I was clearly arguing that overly aggressive mods devalues the product regardless of the rules or previous growth.

I was pointing out that the moderation policy that has been in place for several years has seen the site grow to the point where there were as many posts made last month as there were in the first four and a half years of its existence.

You can infer from that what you wish, but the logical conclusion from my perspective is that the "market" likes a site that is run according to a set of reasonably firm rules. You may not like those rules, but I guess that means that you're not the target market.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was pointing out that the moderation policy that has been in place for several years has seen the site grow to the point where there were as many posts made last month as there were in the first four and a half years of its existence.

You can infer from that what you wish, but the logical conclusion from my perspective is that the "market" likes a site that is run according to a set of reasonably firm rules. You may not like those rules, but I guess that means that you're not the target market.

An analogy. Fianna Fail have been in power ages. People liked them then. They dont now.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

An analogy. Fianna Fail have been in power ages. People liked them then. They dont now.

Well, when you have evidence that people have suddenly decided that they don't like boards.ie, make sure and let me know.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also if you don't like the rules you can go and post on one of the many other discussion websites. That tells me that boards.ie, rules included, is flourishing in a market environment.

Now imagine if boards.ie was a state controlled entity and the only one available to Irish citizens. Denerick and DF would have to hand over 40% of their thanks to other less-thanked members.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Now imagine if boards.ie was a state controlled entity and the only one available to Irish citizens. Denerick and DF would have to hand over 40% of their thanks to other less-thanked members.

I worked hard for my thanks, you bastard!

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, when you have evidence that people have suddenly decided that they don't like boards.ie, make sure and let me know.

I have presented my consumer review. I dislike the attitude of some of the moderators. I no I am not alone. I have no stats. Boards.ie can take my criticism or not. It would would be pretty stupiud to ignor opinions from consumers.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats not what I said.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats classical liberalism. I posted about anarchy, which is a topic little discussed over these 11 pages.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Roads existed before central governments. You can look up on the history of roads if you wish but I'm not going to entertain the idea that we need the government for roads. Courts and a military maybe. But not roads. For starters as a tax payer I have stock in my local road. Voting in local government doesnt go against my anarchism. I'm against states not governments. Look up how roads were made and then tell me you need govenrment for it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dont lie rules and I know there is at least 1,825 people in Ireland that agree with me. The fact that the majority accept rules doesnt make it moral or practical to have these non-flexible rules.

Valmont wrote: »

Boards.ie has reasonably consistent application of clearly stated policies, rules, and forum charters, as well as private and public avenues for redressing complaints. Therefore, the allegation that moderators exist to be arbitrary and capricious bullies is nonsense—such a moderator would not last half an hour on this site.

I didnt say that either. I'm not arguing with you on things I didnt say.

Valmont wrote: »

Also if you don't like the rules you can go and post on one of the many other discussion websites. That tells me that boards.ie, rules included, is flourishing in a market environment.

Now imagine if boards.ie was a state controlled entity and the only one available to Irish citizens. Denerick and DF would have to hand over 40% of their thanks to other less-thanked members.

No we're at last getting into some good discusion. Thats general jist of anarchy. We want daily choice on rules we have to follow.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I posted a feedback and it was closed.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep there is an overlap. Whats your point? Anarchists believe in spontaneous order. That was stated in the information given.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Assuming an anarchist systems allows for property rights, as most anarchist systems did, who ever owns the road controls the speed. Very simple. Local roads thus a local council. We can apply a simple rule(your council your choice of rules) in order to drive on the road you need insurance. Insurance companies wont give insurance to people without driving certs. It wont be illegal to drive without a cert but no sensible person would allow you to drive on their road without either a cert or paying a massive fee.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

I have presented my consumer review. I dislike the attitude of some of the moderators. I no I am not alone. I have no stats. Boards.ie can take my criticism or not. It would would be pretty stupiud to ignor opinions from consumers.

It would be pretty stupid to conform to the views of a small minority of consumers, if to do so would alienate the majority.

I dont lie rules and I know there is at least 1,825 people in Ireland that agree with me. The fact that the majority accept rules doesnt make it moral or practical to have these non-flexible rules.

The fact that there are four and a have million people in Ireland that don't agree with you means it's not moral or practical to get rid of rules just because you don't like them.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I posted a feedback and it was closed.

I can't find any posts by you on the Feedback forum.

Insurance companies wont give insurance to people without driving certs.

Who issues the certs?

silverharp

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who issues the certs?

The Libertarian & anarchists would agree that competing private agencies can issue certs. It works in other areas of life today , education , professional qualifications etc. A centralised Licence system in Ireland's case has probably held back driver training?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

It would be pretty stupid to conform to the views of a small minority of consumers, if to do so would alienate the majority. The fact that there are four and a have million people in Ireland that don't agree with you means it's not moral or practical to get rid of rules just because you don't like them.

I can't find any posts by you on the Feedback forum. Who issues the certs?

I stated my opinion. You asked fir sort of proof that I was in the majority. I never claimed to be in the majority. I gave my opinion and I'm not tolerating any cheek form you any longer.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No. If you cant handle Google than you're not really fit for anything else.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Never said my system is Utopian. The current system doesnt solve the problem as you admit so what wrong with trying another system?

sponsoredwalk

Hazlittle wrote: »

Never said my system is Utopian. The current system doesnt solve the problem as you admit so what wrong with trying another system?

I haven't really read about what the system you're proposing is...

Discussing the rules of the road is fine but you'd think this triviality would fall
into place naturally with respect to the broader picture.

I'm not trying to criticise anyone but I would really expect people arguing in
favour of anarchy to come out with extremely detailed & specific arguments
seeing as you're trying to argue for people to give up their entire way of life.

I'll give an example from professor wikipedia that is both good & classically flawed in the most fundamental way;

On the prison abolition movement

• Prisons may be less effective at discouraging crimes and/or compensating victims than other forms of punishment.[1]
• Degree and quality of access to justice depends on the financial resources of the accused. [2] [3]
• Prisons alienate people from their communities.
• In the U.S., people of color and from the lower class are much more likely to be imprisoned than people of European descent or people who are wealthy.[4]
• People who are put in prison for what are arguably crimes motivated by need, such as some minor theft (food, etc) or prostitution, find it much harder to obtain legal employment once convicted of a crime. Arguably, this difficulty makes it more likely they will find themselves back in the prison system, having had few other options or resources available to support themselves and/or their families.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I Many prison abolitionists argue that we should "legalize survival" and provide help to those who need it instead of making it even harder to find work and perpetuating the non-violent crimes.
• Prisons are not proven to make people less violent. In fact, there is evidence that they may instead promote violence in individuals by surrounding them with other violent criminals, which can lead to predictable negative/violent results.[5]
• Drug-related offenders are being ushered in and out of the prison system like a revolving door. Rather than educate, and rehabilitate the offender to a clean path of sobriety and increased stature, the state ignores them.

On Women & Prison

• 59 % of women who are incarcerated in prison were convicted of a property or drug crime, while only 40% of men incarcerated in prison were convicted a property or drug crime. [6]
• 35 % of women incarcerated in prisons were convicted of violent offenses, while 53% of men were convicted [6]
• Women are twice as likely as men to victimize someone they know. [6]
• Between the years 1986 and 1996 drug offenses counted for 49% of the women in prisons. [6]
• While the rate women used drugs declined in the years from 1986 to 1996 the number of women in prison for drug offenses increased by 888%, while the other non-drug offenses only rose 129% during the same time period. [6]
• 33% of women, in 1998, stated they committed the crime they were in jail for in order to obtain money to buy drugs. [6]
• 40% of women in prison for the year of 1998 reported using drugs at the time they were put in prison, while only 32% of men claimed this. [6]
• In the year 2005, 73.1% of women in prison had a mental health problem, 55% of their male counterparts had a mental health problem. [6]
• 57% of women who were in prison claimed to have experienced physical abuse or sexual abuse prior to their incarceration. [6]
• 68% of prison physicians stated that women prisoners in their prison had access to elective abortions. [7]

link

Alright, great statistics & I'd heartily agree that prison has all & more of the flaws in that link,
but there is no/very little mention of a viable alternative.

If you want to convince anyone of anything you want to get to the root of
the problem & not just bicker because you're going to convince some of
the people reading this thread that anarchism is just child's play...

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

I stated my opinion. You asked fir sort of proof that I was in the majority.

I don't think I did, no.

I never claimed to be in the majority. I gave my opinion and I'm not tolerating any cheek form you any longer.

It's called discussion. If you're not interested in engaging in discussion, nobody's forcing you to keep posting.

No. If you cant handle Google than you're not really fit for anything else.

That's not discussion either.

You might not fully understand the point of a discussion forum like this, but the idea is to engage other people in a conversation; to explain to them why you believe in what you do, and why they should believe in it also.

You're singularly failing to do so, and not being particularly polite about it.

Never said my system is Utopian. The current system doesnt solve the problem as you admit so what wrong with trying another system?

The law of unintended consequences.

simplistic2

This is an interesting study done on road safety in Montana and it clearly shows that people act far more responsibly when their environment does not give the illusion of safety with speed limits and road signs.

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.

1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

simplistic2

silverharp wrote: »

The Libertarian & anarchists would agree that competing private agencies can issue certs. It works in other areas of life today , education , professional qualifications etc. A centralised Licence system in Ireland's case has probably held back driver training?

I think I had to wait about 14 weeks to take a test , you safely assume there is plenty of room in that market to cut that wait time down to about a week or less.

seawolf145

Hazlittle wrote: »

http://irishlibertyforum.org/researched-articles/68-what-is-anarchy.html



Articles continues to explain some anarchist theory. No historical examples given but I am told they will come later if you sign up on the left for the newsletter.

Personally I prefer anarcho-naturism. As I dont like government and I like being naked.:D

Anarchy

Friday or Saturday night out in Mullingar.

simplistic2

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I haven't really read about what the system you're proposing is...

Discussing the rules of the road is fine but you'd think this triviality would fall
into place naturally with respect to the broader picture.

I'm not trying to criticise anyone but I would really expect people arguing in
favour of anarchy to come out with extremely detailed & specific arguments
seeing as you're trying to argue for people to give up their entire way of life.

I'll give an example from professor wikipedia that is both good & classically flawed in the most fundamental way;

On the prison abolition movement

• Prisons may be less effective at discouraging crimes and/or compensating victims than other forms of punishment.[1]
• Degree and quality of access to justice depends on the financial resources of the accused. [2] [3]
• Prisons alienate people from their communities.
• In the U.S., people of color and from the lower class are much more likely to be imprisoned than people of European descent or people who are wealthy.[4]
• People who are put in prison for what are arguably crimes motivated by need, such as some minor theft (food, etc) or prostitution, find it much harder to obtain legal employment once convicted of a crime. Arguably, this difficulty makes it more likely they will find themselves back in the prison system, having had few other options or resources available to support themselves and/or their families.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I Many prison abolitionists argue that we should "legalize survival" and provide help to those who need it instead of making it even harder to find work and perpetuating the non-violent crimes.
• Prisons are not proven to make people less violent. In fact, there is evidence that they may instead promote violence in individuals by surrounding them with other violent criminals, which can lead to predictable negative/violent results.[5]
• Drug-related offenders are being ushered in and out of the prison system like a revolving door. Rather than educate, and rehabilitate the offender to a clean path of sobriety and increased stature, the state ignores them.

On Women & Prison

• 59 % of women who are incarcerated in prison were convicted of a property or drug crime, while only 40% of men incarcerated in prison were convicted a property or drug crime. [6]
• 35 % of women incarcerated in prisons were convicted of violent offenses, while 53% of men were convicted [6]
• Women are twice as likely as men to victimize someone they know. [6]
• Between the years 1986 and 1996 drug offenses counted for 49% of the women in prisons. [6]
• While the rate women used drugs declined in the years from 1986 to 1996 the number of women in prison for drug offenses increased by 888%, while the other non-drug offenses only rose 129% during the same time period. [6]
• 33% of women, in 1998, stated they committed the crime they were in jail for in order to obtain money to buy drugs. [6]
• 40% of women in prison for the year of 1998 reported using drugs at the time they were put in prison, while only 32% of men claimed this. [6]
• In the year 2005, 73.1% of women in prison had a mental health problem, 55% of their male counterparts had a mental health problem. [6]
• 57% of women who were in prison claimed to have experienced physical abuse or sexual abuse prior to their incarceration. [6]
• 68% of prison physicians stated that women prisoners in their prison had access to elective abortions. [7]

link

Alright, great statistics & I'd heartily agree that prison has all & more of the flaws in that link,
but there is no/very little mention of a viable alternative.

If you want to convince anyone of anything you want to get to the root of
the problem & not just bicker because you're going to convince some of
the people reading this thread that anarchism is just child's play...

In a free society their would be no victimless crimes. This alone would slash the amount of people in prisons. Since many people gain from crime in our society at present like lawyers , judges , Gardai and politicians from a campaign standpoint there is very little incentive to actually try rehabilitate prisoners.

Denerick

Who deals with criminals if there is no law?

Or perhaps the criminal will form a local state. He'll organise the local thugs and monopolise control of weapons around them. While the rest of the populace shrink in terror of these maniacs now in charge of them. Anarchism would be a little easier to stomach if it wasn't so God damn naive.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

Who deals with criminals if there is no law?

Or perhaps the criminal will form a local state. He'll organise the local thugs and monopolise control of weapons around them. While the rest of the populace shrink in terror of these maniacs now in charge of them. Anarchism would be a little easier to stomach if it wasn't so God damn naive.

And then after that all the criminals get together and buy a big laser cannon and hold the world to ransom for 1 million dollars!!

Its called private law...

Also you have just described the formation of the state you live under....naive....

Denerick

How you can compare the state I live in with the myopic future state (IE, one without constitution or even the illusion of representative democracy) is laughable.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

How you can compare the state I live in with the myopic future state (IE, one without constitution or even the illusion of representative democracy) is laughable.

You live in a state of anarchy just a very bad one...

Rabble Rabble

simplistic2 wrote: »

Also you have just described the formation of the state you live under....naive....

So anarchism leads to the State we live in? Except the rule of law is replaced by the guy with the Big Gun?

I'l pass.

Rabble Rabble

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The other thing with anarchists is they keep forming governments, no matter how hard they try not to. If we get together and make laws, or directives, and try and enforce them at whatever level, local, national, or international, then what we are doing is forming a government.

simplistic2

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

So anarchism leads to the State we live in? Except the rule of law is replaced by the guy with the Big Gun?

I'l pass.

Of course it does that why I support anarchism because I like having a big gun at me:rolleyes: