AC and power

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in this scenario use your guns and keep the new group from messing with you. Then live however you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to the tanks? Planes? Does everyone need to have a few rocket launchers in their house to enjoy freedom?

[ QUOTE ]

Even in the police state that is America there is no way the government could control the population except by the population's consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Consent" as the driving force of libertarian morality. If I "consent" to having a government, then I have a government.

[ QUOTE ]

How would a private mob ever gain more power than the state? Seems impossible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, never in the history of the world has someone with a lot of guns gained a lot of power. Never.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you take away hte meta ideals of the people who have come to power with violence there is little to fight for. Certainly the entire German army was not fighting for Nazi ideals. Rather they were fighting for Germany. Under AC there is no Germany, and hence no German government to fight for.

Also your argument is flawed because there are very few people who have ever come to power outside of the power structure already in place. In a lot of places it is shoot the president, become the president. But this still rests upon the perceived legitimacy of the presidents position. If there is no president then how do you assume this power? It no longer is cut and dry, rather you would have to exert direct control over entire regions to keep the people under control.

In my town in upstate NY there is about 8 cops for a few thousand people. There is no way these cops could do anything if the people decided not to listen. Thats what I meant by the government ruling only by consent in America. The government does not have the resources to exert direct control over the people. The people listen because thats what they have always done.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

unless of course the people in a given area pay for the service of protection from the mob. Say a private security company who would be equipped with whatever the citizens felt was necessary. They could keep the mob from ever coming in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly differentiates that private security company from a mob? That is the distinction you fail to adress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, obviously voluntary payments would do this. yet if you stopped paying there is always the chance of them turning their guns on you.

In many ways there is no difference. However I was envisioning a more communal group, like the volunteer firefighters, rather than a private firm. communal defense has more safegaurds against run away power plays

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

When you take away hte meta ideals of the people who have come to power with violence there is little to fight for. Certainly the entire German army was not fighting for Nazi ideals. Rather they were fighting for Germany. Under AC there is no Germany, and hence no German government to fight for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered getting this radical thesis published in some scholarly journals? You can't merely assert this sort of thing and hope I (or others) accept it.

[ QUOTE ]

Also your argument is flawed because there are very few people who have ever come to power outside of the power structure already in place. In a lot of places it is shoot the president, become the president. But this still rests upon the perceived legitimacy of the presidents position. If there is no president then how do you assume this power? It no longer is cut and dry, rather you would have to exert direct control over entire regions to keep the people under control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya rly? People overthrow entire governments repeatedly throughout history. I think it's a lot less about "perceived" power of the president and a lot more about the "actual" power of a lot of guns.

[ QUOTE ]

In my town in upstate NY there is about 8 cops for a few thousand people. There is no way these cops could do anything if the people decided not to listen. Thats what I meant by the government ruling only by consent in America. The government does not have the resources to exert direct control over the people. The people listen because thats what they have always done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but this just means entire populaces need to be under a constant state of revolution. Sure, I accept that this constant state will make it hard for overarching power structures to develop. Still not a very attractive way of life.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya rly? People overthrow entire governments repeatedly throughout history. I think it's a lot less about "perceived" power of the president and a lot more about the "actual" power of a lot of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point in that if there is no government than there is nothing to take over. To take over an area you would literally have to have the support, either voluntary or coerced, of all the people in it.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but this just means entire populaces need to be under a constant state of revolution. Sure, I accept that this constant state will make it hard for overarching power structures to develop. Still not a very attractive way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe so. Going back to the major point that you haphazardly glossed over, it would seem that the power needed to exert the type of control seen in current nations would be impossible without abstract ideas of nationhood or other catch all phrases. For an example, how many marines do you believe are fighting for america vs GWB? Id wager that without the idea of America there would be very few marines that would be willing to die for the grandeur of one man. (not a political debate, just an example)

You might say that these people would fight for money. But I poist that in the modern era of warfare it doesn't take much for a town to defend itself. This of course assumes that the mob is not attempting to exapnd it's revenue base by killing most of the people and razing all the buildings

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
You are missing the point in that if there is no government than there is nothing to take over. To take over an area you would literally have to have the support, either voluntary or coerced, of all the people in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm saying that this is a lot easier than you make it out be...

In general, you are touching on something I want to bring to the forefront of the debate: cultural/idealogical "coercion". I don't disagree at all that it is important, but I think that without any sort of identification, lives are pretty meaningless and that with some sort of identification people will always be willing to submit themselves to larger powers.

[bkholdem]

The fact that people are so quick to argue about others having guns and using force is why we do not have AC.

science has discoverd the missing link between anthropoid apes and civilized human beings..........

...........

...................

It's us.


Without a civil civilization there can be no AC IMO and since we are still routinely slaughtering each other for money, not to mention for free (to satisfy emotions) we have a ways to go yet.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Without a civil civilization there can be no AC IMO and since we are still routinely slaughtering each other for money, not to mention for free (to satisfy emotions) we have a ways to go yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad we agree.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

by libertarian morality what do you mean? link?

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to know what YOU mean by libertarian morality, you know, to possibly engage in a discussion about it.

[xorbie]

I just see libertarian morality, generally, as the maxim of: "freedom to do what I want until it conflicts with your freedom". Fairly standard.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I just see libertarian morality, generally, as the maxim of: "freedom to do what I want until it conflicts with your freedom". Fairly standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you consicely describe the moral code you adhere to (and I'm assuming that you think others should adhere to and maybe even be forced to adhere to...otherwise where is the conflict?)