AC Already Exists

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchy already exists on a global scale, that much seems fairly obvious. In my opinion, this global scale anarchy will translate to the individual almost exactly. The difference is: instead of only around 200 countries constantly fighting with each other, 6 billion people would be fighting with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

200 countries fighting and 6 billion people fighting is the same thing.

If the world were governed by individuals than we'd only have interpersonal conflicts amongst those specifically tied to issues. We wouldnt be discussing a nuclear strike against a country of tens of millions like Iran for the actions of an extreme minority of individuals.

In addition, we dont have 200 countries at war. There are many countries with harsh cultural animosity towards each other that do nothing but trade and will not fight due to inter-dependency. Moreover, with the costs of war internalized to the individuals wars will be more highly avoided and those who don't participate will prosper well beyond the likes of those who do - assuming unworthy wars are being fight.

[XxGodJrxX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If my family and friends have a lot of guns, we can kill and take the property of a few of my neighbors. Who will stop me?

[/ QUOTE ] Police? Security guards? The fact that your neighbors also have weapons, meaning that several of your family members or friends may perish? If you are ok with your brother being shot in the head while you attempt to steal your neighbors plasma TV, and then are arrested by the police after, theres not really much anyone can do. But how is that any different than the world is now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say it's the beginning of AC-land. Nobody expects there to be violence outright. I get together a gang of 15 people, and start doing this. Also, what police? The only police that exist in AC-land are private police, and they would have to be large enough to be able to kill my family, friends, and other people I recruited. Let's say I am charismatic and strong enough to eventually recruit 50 people, and go around terrorizing my neighbors. I offer my neighbors the choice of joining me and get rich, or die. This is how rebellions sometime start and gain power, there isn't a reason that I cannot overtake a private police force.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I do agree, however, that within the states, only a few people generally make the decision to go to war. That is besides my point.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's entirely the point. If only a small percentage of people actually make the decisions for the rest it can't be said that it's the actions of everyone.
[ QUOTE ]
Why can't people fight with each other profitably? There are bullies in schools that beat up smaller kids and take their lunch money everyday. If they don't get in trouble with the law or school

[/ QUOTE ]
That fact that they may get punished is a pretty big detriment to profitablility.

Violence from individuals may be profitable in some rare cases, however this is certainly outweighted by the fact that government always makes wars profitable (for the government officials and their cronies, not the people paying for it of course).

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'd obviously prefer to be as safe as possible, so we group together and form the state.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying the state is a voluntary organization of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this?


Would you say you're a voluntarist?

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you talking to me or him?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If my family and friends have a lot of guns, we can kill and take the property of a few of my neighbors. Who will stop me?

[/ QUOTE ] Police? Security guards? The fact that your neighbors also have weapons, meaning that several of your family members or friends may perish? If you are ok with your brother being shot in the head while you attempt to steal your neighbors plasma TV, and then are arrested by the police after, theres not really much anyone can do. But how is that any different than the world is now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say it's the beginning of AC-land. Nobody expects there to be violence outright. I get together a gang of 15 people, and start doing this. Also, what police? The only police that exist in AC-land are private police, and they would have to be large enough to be able to kill my family, friends, and other people I recruited. Let's say I am charismatic and strong enough to eventually recruit 50 people, and go around terrorizing my neighbors. I offer my neighbors the choice of joining me and get rich, or die. This is how rebellions sometime start and gain power, there isn't a reason that I cannot overtake a private police force.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where's the profit in this pathological scenario? What makes you think your little rebellion would defeat whoever the rest of society contracts security to?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'd obviously prefer to be as safe as possible, so we group together and form the state.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying the state is a voluntary organization of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this?


Would you say you're a voluntarist?

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[XxGodJrxX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'd obviously prefer to be as safe as possible, so we group together and form the state.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying the state is a voluntary organization of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this?


Would you say you're a voluntarist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen some people on this forum use volunteerist as people that voluntarily choose and agree not to kill each other, and that I definitely am not. I think what you mean it that we are apart of the state voluntarily. Now, that is trickier.

By creating the state, we, as a people, voluntarily chose to enter this social contract. Now that we are within apart of the state, we can't easily get out of it. As long as a majority of the people with guns are in favor of the state, you can't simply opt out. You can either leave, live within the state, or resist against the state. If you do resist, chances are that you won't win if you only have a few people on your side. It is not unheard of for a rebellion against the state to succeed though (American Revolution and the French Revolution are simple examples that come to mind).

By giving up our authority to the state, we give up some of our rights in favor for some safety. Our absolute right to go around and do whatever we want for free, is given up. We pay taxes, give up our $ to the state so that it could built up a security force, etc.

I DO think that the state it is a completely voluntary construct, and that nobody HAS to participate. The only thing that matters when it comes to determining power, is military power. If you think the state is unjust, it is absolutely within your rights to do whatever you can to bring it down. Even if you DON'T think the state is unjust, and are just a power-hungry mofo, it is entirely within your rights to try to topple the government. The government solely exists at the will of the people, to prevent harm from coming to them. If enough people hate the elites in power, they WILL be toppled (and killed in dramatic fashion).

[XxGodJrxX]

The profit in my pathological scenario is power. The more land I take over, the more power I have. The more wealth I steal, the more power I have. The more people I have under my control, the more power I have.

It may seem pathological, but this is how empires were created.

[Nielsio]

Would you then also say that the actions of the people who make up the state are also based on the voluntary principle?

[XxGodJrxX]

Yes. At any point, the people CAN simply refuse to go along with the government. Government is worthless without the consent of the people.