F1fth wrote:Philosophy is all good and well, my friend, but what about enforcement? Since when have people cared about what is ethical if it could elevate themselves to more power?
This has already been addressed, and I don't feel like repeating myself.
If we ask society to operate purely on the "honor" system, then I'm afraid that society would fail miserably.
Straw man. Anarchism doesn't rely on everyone to use the honor system; it instead relies on human nature that people are good, bad, and somewhere in between. But Anarchism doesn't presuppose that
And while the philosophy may have come first, the reason the State came into being was to enforce that philosophy.
.... by violating the philosophy. Right. Some how this just doesn't seem to logically flow.
And besides, who would define "liberty" and "ethics" anyway. Every single person has a different take one what those two words mean. For instance, abortion seems like a perfectly ethical right that should be guaranteed to them. Conversely, some people think it's worse than murder to kill and unborn child. Who's right who's wrong. Who decides this in anarchy?
I am imagining a world where everyone is armed, and there's nothing that says I can't go shoot my neighbor and take his land except the code of "Ethics."
You obviously didn't read a word I just wrote.
That world scares the f*ck out of me.
People are often afraid of what they don't understand.
And this kind of world would give an insane amount of power to the gun manufacturers and defense organizations (essentially they'd be small groups of power). Essentially, they'd become small governments as they could start asking for people to give up rights for their protection (sound familiar). I mean, what organization would say no to more power over the people?
No power here. Consider that the world functions on the ultimate free market; you could choose not to use their services, and if they acted unethically, it would be bad mojo for them. After all, if I as a PDA screw you over as the customer, or take "liberties" you don't like, what is to stop you from going to another competing PDA, and reducing my ability to function?
And why would criminals change? Why not just band together and take what they will.
You're blindly asserting that there are more "bad" people then "good" people. If we accepted this, we would have to accept that government would be just as bad.
Form some kind of terrorist group and take control? It happens even in todays world is far less orderly societies, because it's a lot easier and more profitable to take than it is to earn.
So your argument is that we must create a government in order to prevent a government from arising. You've essentially argued against a government. If you concede that a monopoly on force is bad and must be prevented, then you concede that government is bad.
You'd make a better anarchist than you think.
Why can I not appeal to the majority? That's like telling a sports team that they can't field their bes player, and then not even explaining why.
I didn't say you can't. I said it does nothing to support your argument because it relies on a logical fallacy, and a moral one as well; what is the "majority" but a collection of individuals? You're creating a special other-wise non-existent "right" for these individuals at the expense of other individuals. How can you logically deduce any sort of acceptable standard if some people have more rights then others? The short answer is that you can't.
Simply put, there are a lot more people out there who are willing to sacrifice rights for safety than there are people who want anarchy.
So we who don't desire that "sacrifice" should be subjected to it, slaves to the will of some invisible majority?
Otherwise, people would be rioting in the streets or trying to overthrow the government.
Oh yeah, because hey, violence is the only option. Give me a break. Anarchism is non-violent concept, relying solely on voluntary interaction. Agorism, tax evasion, are these concepts you're unaware of?
So what makes your opinion of how the world should be more important than what others think it should be like. How can things be decided but by the majority of the people? Well, you could make your decisions for them, but I think that falls under govenment...
Me thinks thou hast built a man of straw. Never have I claimed that any body would make any decisions for anyone, nor that my proposed system is for everyone (Anarchism is polycentric. If you wanted to live in a Democratic Commune where you all worshiped Hare Krishna, that's your prerogative, just don't for me into it); rather, everyone would make decisions for themself. Now, I imagine you'll have something to say about this for a second, but think about it before you respond: If people can't rule themself, what makes them any capable of ruling others in one form or another?
Interesting. May I try my hand at it? 
