‘This really makes me sick. I’m really worried about the path we are walking down’

I don’t think we’re walking down this path, I think we’re being dragged kicking and screaming…

For example, in a situation like this, the police shouldn’t release much information that might possibly infringe upon the privacy of the mayor and his wife, unless the mayor and his wife request it; if the mayor and his wife requests such release, however, there is no basis for continuing to withhold the information.

BTW, if I had my druthers, one thing I would state in law: police and other government agents shall have no expectation of privacy while conducting official government business, other than such specific exceptions as may be provided for by law. Laws against disseminating videos and recordings of people, etc. which are predicated upon the protection of privacy shall not generally be construed to forbid the dissemination of videos and recordings of police engaging in official business.

See you on the internets!

While I am still not an anarchist convert, listening to views like yours will at least keep me honest and open-minded. And visiting The Agitator, as a protective services employee, and potential police recruit, has been a very valuable experience. I’ll never forget the lessons I’ve learned or discussions I’ve had in this forum. I am an individual first and foremost. Everything else is secondary. Thanks again.

I see the organizing principle of an ideal society as self-defense. Most rational individuals will act anarchically most of the time. Irrational individuals risk injury or death if they initiate violence on another individual. Rather than “calling in folks like [you] to solve their problems,” frankly these individuals need to hang by their own petards. I favor natural selection. Again, I see no compelling reason for a state to form because of the threat of irrational individuals, if individual sovereignty permits the individual to defend himself with deadly force.

“-You shouldn’t have blind faith in any person, deity, etc..”

100% agreement!

“However, if you take this too far, you begin to see everyone as a rival, or even the enemy.”

I have my low days where, upon passing any other person, friend or stranger, I mutter under my breath, “Hello, killer.” Sometimes the truth hurts.

“I have bad days where I get close to this, but I don’t think this position is healthy or justifiable.”

I’m glad to know I’m not alone, and I agree it’s over the top. It’s the absence of hope talking.

“Even an individualist must come to realize how interconnected we really are.”

Interconnectedness is a neutral concept, I have no truck with it. The question is, are we interconnected voluntarily or involuntarily? It seems to me that most of our relationships are involuntary. This creates cognitive dissonance resulting in anxiety.

“Don’t give Blackwater any ideas … I can’t agree with you on that one.”

Blackwater is a government contractor, a fascist entity. There is nothing private about them. Blackwater is not a private defense organization. But I still understand your objection.

“Here’s one more inquiry: How do you feel about the relationship between the employer and employee? I’m guessing that you are less inclined than other libertarians to call this a ‘voluntary relationship.’”

It’s difficult to analyze this from a neutral perspective owing to our present statist system. After privileges for both management and labor are balanced, I believe the state favors employers over employees. So, I could see how limited-state libertarians or minarchists would consider the present relationship between employer and employee as involuntary, especially when one adds in the burden of taxation, which renders every income-earner in the system a slave. The U.S. economic system is fascist, so there’s hardly a voluntary aspect to it at all, except for limited freedom to choose one’s occupation (in the face of licensure, etc.)

Questions as to freedom in the economy are moot until and unless the economy is divorced from the State. In free-market anarchy, every single business relationship would be voluntary. Your question would make as little sense to an anarchist like me as before, but from the opposite perspective!

“I support some form of guaranteed minimum income.”

Can’t agree with you there. I believe in sink or swim. I believe that one had better maintain positive relationships with one’s family as a safety net, else beg for charity (which would prosper in a anarchic society).

So to sum up, I guess I’m somewhere left of left. It’s all or nothing with me. It’s a switch, on or off. It’s digital, 0 or 1. Either one is free or one is a slave. I’d prefer not to debate the degree of slavery, it only serves to remind me of my status.

“See, I have no faith in my fellow man. Perhaps no rational person should.”
-You shouldn’t have blind faith in any person, deity, etc.. However, if you take this too far, you begin to see everyone as a rival, or even the enemy. I have bad days where I get close to this, but I don’t think this position is healthy or justifiable. Most people are just trying to get by, pure and simple. Most people will lend you a hand if you need it. Even an individualist must come to realize how interconnected we really are.

“It is logical that if a private company can outperform the State in postal service and every other good or service, then it should hold for national defense as well.”
-Ooh, careful Cynical! Don’t give Blackwater any ideas. I kid, but I can’t agree with you on that one.

Here’s one more inquiry: How do you feel about the relationship between the employer and employee? I’m guessing that you are less inclined than other libertarians to call this a “voluntary relationship.” After all, if I piss off my boss and I get fired, eventually I may lose my apartment or go hungry. With this hanging over my head, I don’t consider the contract with my employer to be voluntary (one reason why I support some form of guranteed minimum income, possibly incorporating Georgist ideas of land value/natural resource use taxation instead of direct income taxation). Just wondering what your views on that one are. This is one area that divides the Left and Right flanks of libertarianism almost every time.

Please ignore the coda after “Peace out.”

:)

Very much likewise.

“You state that you “have no hope of anarchism being realized,” which strikes me as intellectually honest. I always appreciate intellectual honesty!”

Separating the arguer from the argument is one of the most difficult concepts in human communication. I cannot count the times I have disclaimed, “this argument exists independently of me!” Maybe I should change my moniker to “Intellectually Honest in CA.” ;-)

Pure anarchism appears to exist only in the individual. Once a human relationship is created, anarchism goes out the window it seems. Even in your example of everyday anarchism, an idea expounded by Georgetown law professor John Hasnas and Southwestern law professor Butler Shaffer, there is hidden force. The innocent transaction between yourself and the clerk at 7-11 is anarchic on the surface — you give him Fed Res. notes in exchange for a cup of coffee, you both gain, no guns are used by the two of you, etc. — behind it is the United States, state labor laws, interstate commerce laws, sales tax, transportation regulations, tariffs on coffee or whatever, ad infinitum. Like Bastiat’s broken window, there is that which is seen and that which is not. Perfectly anarchic relationships are very rare.

In your two examples of criminal justice and your occupation, you and I are skirting the issue of statism versus anarchism, whether the State maintains a monopoly not only on the use of force in its area of control, but also monopolies on the provision of criminal justice, law, postal services, national defense, etc. I firmly believe that ANY good or service currently monopolized by the State can be delivered infinitely more efficiently and morally through cooperation. And if it can’t, then morally it has no right to be provided in its current form.

This is another coup de grace by statists against anarchists — the provision of national defense. I haven’t worked it out myself, but I am confident there is an anarchist thinker out there who has, perhaps Rothbard. It is logical that if a private company can outperform the State in postal service and every other good or service, then it should hold for national defense as well. Or perhaps nations can only exist through force, in which case all nations are immoral. And if nations are inevitable, then it follows that it is inevitable that human beings are immoral. From that it follows that anarchism is impossible in reality.

See, I have no faith in my fellow man. Perhaps no rational person should. Perhaps all rational individuals should demand and defend the natural right of self-defense instead of contracting it out or yielding it to the State. That’s anarchy. All power to the individual.

Well you got me ranting, but it’s cool.

“And with the education and training I’ve accrued, I could certainly find a job in private protective services in your ideal society. I’d be ok either way, I guess. Thus, my argument against anarchy isn’t personal, just philosophical.”

I couldn’t agree more. An anarchist society would be a great place for a competent individual. In fact, incompetents would perish unless they were very, very nice to their relatives, which is really a form of cooperative trade in itself.

In short, contrary to human nature, anything presently achieved by force can be done infinitely better and moral through cooperation. It is the duty of competent, moral individuals everywhere to stand up for themselves and fight the incompetent, immoral individuals who stand with the State.

Just so we’re clear, if one votes, one stands with the State.

Peace out.

Put succinctly, I think that the state can be justified when health and safety are at stake. I was a criminal justice major and currently serve as a non-sworn healthcare security officer at a large, private hospital, so this has certainly influenced my views. But, if the society you envision becomes a reality, my current job would actually carry MORE prestige (Many people give us shit just because we aren’t “the police,” per se, and we don’t carry guns. Explaining the rights of private property owners or our ability to make private person’s arrests, is usually a waste of time with these idiots). And with the education and training I’ve accrued, I could certainly find a job in private protective services in your ideal society. I’d be ok either way, I guess. Thus, my argument against anarchy isn’t personal, just philosophical.

Though I don’t call myself an anarchist (maybe a minarchist?), I must admit that your argument is bolstered by certain facts of life. For instance, most of our daily activities involve cooperation, rather than coercion. Regarding criminal justice, individuals are usually not required to report incidents to the authorities (ie. crimes), but do so because most people believe that public safety requires some collective action (ie. a police agency). Many people, including myself, pick and choose which incidents merit this response. I happen to think that death investigation requires this kind of response, and in most states that I am familiar with, you must report an unattended death. I feel the same way about other incidents that could effect large numbers of people in the community (agg. assault, rapes, burglaries, thefts, arson, reckless driving/DUI, fires, haz-mat incidents, etc.).

Put succinctly, I think that the state can be justified when health and safety are at stake. I was a criminal justice major and currently serve as a non-sworn healthcare security officer at a large, private hospital, so this has certainly influenced my views. But, if the society you envision becomes a reality, my current job would actually carry MORE prestige (Many people give us shit just because we aren’t “the police,” per se, and we don’t carry guns. Explaining the rights of private property owners or our ability to make private person’s arrests, is usually a waste of time with these idiots). And with the education and training I’ve accrued, I could certainly find a job in private protective services in your ideal society. I’d be ok either way, I guess. Thus, my argument against anarchy isn’t personal, just philosophical.

“If you take the original meaning of “Anarchos,” which meant a society without rulers, then I am certainly with you. If you speak of a society without some form of representative democracy, and without minimum standards of conduct for citizens and government agents alike (laws, constitutions, some licensing, etc.), then I don’t find that to be a credible alternative.”

In my vision of anarchism, which is by no means original or unique, the organizing principle of society is cooperation rather than force — force being the organizing principle of the State.

Force still exists, but it devolves to the individual. Each individual must then decide how to conduct oneself. Over time, society evolves standards of conduct. Nonviolent means of enforcement are applied, such as ostracism and moral suasion.

I see no compelling argument for the inevitability of a Hobbesian reality or the re-emergence of the State in any form, but of course it cannot be ruled out.

This is a key component of anarchism, its unpredictability as to form. Statists who bother to refute anarchist arguments usually regard this as the coup de grace against anarchism, this uncertainty.

I too do not want to submit a tome on the subject here. In the past here I have outlined the basic qualities of anarchism that present it as the only alternative to statism. I have concluded that man is a killer being at heart and that violence is built into the code. In short, I have no hope of anarchism being realized.

I am satisfied for the time being that I have demonstrated in valid and sound arguments that reforming the State is utterly futile because force is force, force is corrupt, and concentrated force tends toward absolutes. Once the State forms, the game is over.

Reforms are not alternatives. Only abolition is an alternative. Only individual sovereignty is an alternative. That it is an infinitesimal hope changes nothing. Arguing over which form the State should take is just rearranging the deck chairs.

You are entitled to your opinions, but I disagree. I am something of a political junkie, and have considered many different ideologies, including the Left and Right-wing strains of anarchism. I understand that this idea goes back to ancient Greece, but I have never found it to be too convincing. If you take the original meaning of “Anarchos,” which meant a society without rulers, then I am certainly with you. If you speak of a society without some form of representative democracy, and without minimum standards of conduct for citizens and government agents alike (laws, constitutions, some licensing, etc.), then I don’t find that to be a credible alternative.

I think we can agree that “anarcho-socialism” would rather quickly devolve into the kind of state socialism we are familiar with, because the impulse to collectivize everything becomes too strong and leads to atrocities (see Bryan Caplan’s website). But, with due respect to you, Prof. Caplan, David Friedman, et al., I also see major problems for anarcho-capitalism/individualist anarchism. While I find this theory to be more consistent, I think that an anarcho-capitalist society would devolve into a modern form of feudalism. Of course, without state intervention, corporations would not be as powerful as they currently are. Yet, vast concentrations of private power will remain, and wealthy individuals and organizations will be able to set up fiefdoms which will be able to shut out the rest of us or turn us into lowly serfs. This will only encourage the class warfare that libertarians wish to avoid.

To conclude, I believe that either form of anarchism would quickly obliterate liberal society, and could turn into the Hobbesian “war of all against all” that critics of anarchy often speak of. And I found Nozick’s critique of mutual protection agencies quite compelling when I read “Anarchy, State and Utopia,” some time ago. I am fine with calls for transparency, critiques of the welfare/warfare state, and most other libertarian ideas. But anarchy always leaves many more questions than answers, which has always bothered me. If you can “talk me down” on this one (paraphrasing Rachel Maddow), then I would certainly be open to discussion. Damn, I’m trying to cut down on these long posts, really!

Duly noted, BamBam. I will amend my response:

The solution to the problem is never the problem. The antidote for poison is never more poison. The solution is to be found outside of the system.

The solution is anarchy, or more correctly, individual sovereignty.

That’s the theory, and it works, as long as the lawyer is ethical.

Of course, if the lawyer is actively advising a client how act illegally, both the client and the lawyer can be charged.

In this case, Calvo should have a right to see all the records that are relevant and should be able to determine if the County lawyers are engaged in the cover-up. If so, the communications may lose privilege. That is when it gets really interesting.

Another approach is to determine the identity of the client. It is likely to be the county and not individual officers. If so, the county could request that the lawyers throw the individual officers under the bus.

Does ‘normally’ and ‘usually’ constitute legally, we don’t have to? Is this settled law? Unfortunately, it will cost thousands of dollars to subpoena these docs which will ultimately consists of three pieces of paper that will have been rendered useless by a liberal use of a black marker.

Also “Ellis declined to name the people ultimately arrested in the drug investigation, who he said were cooperating with other drug cases …”

Cheer up: at least we have more SWAT raids and dead dogs to “look forward to.”

Oh, and Michael Chaney, government officials still enjoy privileged communications with their (government) lawyers. This is appropriate and overall beneficial.

Really, Nick? Then, it should be trivial for you to come up with a single instance (note how easy I’m making this) of this being *either* (again, lowering the bar) appropriate *or* beneficial.

Right?