You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: So, you're an anarchist?
The human nature argument is not valid, the only thing that is actually human nature is to adapt & reproduce. everything else we observe in humans is a result of their adapting (or mal-adapting) to their environment (physical, social, emotional).
It's human nature to hoard resources to survive; and to create associations to aid in survival. It is these associations that have grown to compete for the resources hence the need for the rule of law.
Humans, adapting to a paradigm based on the illusion of scarcity, will hoard resources. Without the intrinsic fear of not having enough created by this illusion, hoarding is nonsensical.
Creating associations is not a negative thing, unless inside of a paradigm based on competition, coercion, and disregard for the well-being of all life.
Hoarding is absolutely sensical for humans to plan to survive natural disasters. And to compete for those resources is natural. Again, however only Humans are smart enough to swear fealty to a fictional set of laws to guide through arbitration. But without force there no guarantee of compliance with those laws.
There is a huge difference between stocking necessities of life for self & loved ones in case of emergency, and hoarding "wealth" simply because it is the social norm. This stocking of survival goods is also natural to many other animals.
Being "smart" and "swearing fealty to fiction" are diametrically opposed, and if humans sweared fealty to this set of laws, then there would be no force necessary. You're mixing up laws (violently enforced decisions made by someone else) and agreements (voluntary, and agreed upon by all involved).
So if I disagree that I violated a voluntary agreement who decides who is correct? Or did I just start a war?
That depends on the voluntary agreement, and what was written into it in case of a violation.
So it's not conceivable that force could ever be applied to a violator of a voluntary agreement against his will? How about violent crime, how should that be dealt with when everyone is a sovereign being?
The only results of a violation of an agreement, would be those that all parties agreed to when they wrote/made it. Thus, they could not be against his will unless he/she had been coerced into the original agreement, thus making it null & void.
That would depend on the agreements of the community in which the violent crime happened. In the community where I would be, violence would be seen as the symptom of trauma, something to be healed, not to be punished. Unitive Justice/Restorative Justice are better for the victim, the offender, and society as a whole.
It's also important to note that in a culture where force & coercion are not the standard way of dealing with each other, these incidences will naturally become more and more rare with each generation.
PS: I would highly recommend reading "Atlas Snubbed" by Ken Krawchuck. It is a sequel/parody/refining of what Ayn Rand put forth with Atlas Shrugged, and he does a great job of laying out possible ways different situations of crime/response could play out in a voluntary society.
You're confusing Human Nature with The sociology of Apes in General. Not humans.
Actually, I'm not. I simply do not call something human nature just because it is the way that humans (on average) act inside of a very specific socio-economic model.
Would you really have me believe that everybody on this planet can be an individual sovereign being controlling enough personal resources to survive without a collective understanding of behavior being enforced by a third party against his will in the event of a violation of said understanding?
I really don't care what you believe, as it doesn't have anything to do with me.
Every being on this planet is already sovereign, many of them have simply been tricked into thinking they're not, and are constantly victims of coercion and violence by those who think they know what's good for someone else.
That's what you're asking me to believe. Though. That's what anarchy is: what I described in the question you deflected from. So answer my question not what you wish I had asked but my question or show me where the premise is false. Not some alternative diatribe of conspiracy theory.
For all of history before the state (and all of history for most non-human animals), every being has been an individual sovereign, controlling their own personal resources... so, obviously yes.
Also, if individuals cannot handle this for themselves (as you are putting forth), how could one ever possibly handle it for another.
Yes I agree but that was before the world's population exceeded 500 million. So now we need a State that enforces an agreed upon rule of law and protects human/civil rights of political minorities. The US calls it the new world order but that's actually scary to me; ie: here's why, https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/globalism-is-anarcho-capitalism
The state is the biggest cause of infringements on human/civil rights that humanity has ever seen. Whether that state be the US, USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Russia, China, etc. A state is by definition an infringement on human rights, as it only receives income by stealing it, only creates rules through threatening violence, and is simply institutionalized feudalism.
These are Humans:
True statement...
You're still not actually addressing my point, that human nature is only what is universal to humans, not what is present in some humans in a specific time, place, and socio-economic paradigm.
With humans, there is nothing universal or instinctual. Statistically speaking humans are like a virus on the earth consuming and hoarding to consume later and compete with each other for resources - but are smart enough to create the fiction of the rule of law.
Nothing besides adaptation. Thus my statement that human nature is a fiction.
Uhh... survival, safety, reproduction...
Human nature is to hoard resources. Law is fictional but we can swear fealty to it and give it power in that way.
Your opinion, I disagree, and there is no proof either way, so we're just going in circles.
True, but why would we? I am a huge fan of agreements, contracts, intentional communities, dispute-resolution organizations, and many other fictions that we can give power to, which do not involve force or coercion.
Who decides when a violation of a private agreement happened?
Those involved, and/or anyone else that was involved in the agreement process as a mediator, DRO, etc.
Morality is also fictional construct created by the framework of fictional law and therefore, morals need our fealty to have power.
There are many who would disagree with that. Check out Mark Passio's "Natural Law" seminars.
This is a game-changer.