There are those that know how to debate and there are those that lose debates.

Notice how you’ve painted yourself into a corner. By your argument, the Nazis and Soviets formed (or changed) their government to provide “stability”.

How’d that turn out?

Dennis N (#253): “Thebottom line, despite the fevered rantings of anarchist wannabees, is that no sane society will allow Anarchy to exist.”

Instead of addressing the matter of using reason rather than force, instead of looking at right and wrong, you ignore those wholly logical points and short-circuit any civil dialog by concocting unfounded accusations of “fevered rantings” and suggestions of insanity.

But what have any of the commenters to whom you object written which was “fevered” or “ranting” or “insane”? I, and others, have advocated freedom, self rule, consensual relationships, and the ethical superiority of using reason instead of aggressive force. (I’ll try to be as accurate as possible characterizing others who have posted comments here. If I stray over the line, my apologies, and if they are even reading this, they are free to correct me.)

Dennis N (#253): “Your wishing that history was different, and refusing to see what is staring you in the face, doesn’t negate the fact that anarchy is the fevered pipe dream of people with time on their hands and nothing constructive to do with it.”

If you read your comments and my corrections of your factual errors (USSR, Third Reich), you’ll find that it is you who thinks history was actually different than it was. I see, staring me in the face, the result of increasing government power being applied to large populations, not only in those totalitarian regimes, but in the US and other so-called “free” nations, like the UK. Contrary to your characterizations, none of the people here who have objected to the ugly, violent, and often deadly application of government power to the lives of us all have been puffing at opium pipes. I have no illusions about government evaporating and freedom bursting forth, like the ending of some melodramatic Hollywood feel-good movie.

On the contrary, I and the people with whom I’m familiar (who may or may not be represented by others who have posted here) see what actually is and despair at the cost to ourselves and our neighbors, realizing that things are only getting worse, when it didn’t have to go this way in the “Land of the Free”. I choose not to put on blinders, wave the flag on the 4th of July to speeches peppered with meaningless references to “freedom”, or dumbly cling to hope that lining up at the polls will ever be a way to recapture lost freedoms.

In other words, I look the facts straight in the eye and don’t like what I see. I’m not distracted by platitudes and false hope, nor dissuaded by nonsensical name-calling (“fevered rantings”, “pipe dreams”, insanity), nor convinced by the usual litany of logical fallacies put forth in furtherance of tradition, popularity, or “might makes right”.

I’m simply pointing out what is unethical about the way things are, when people who are doing no harm to others are harmed for one bad excuse or another.

Dennis N (#253): “Anarchy destroys the stability that societies crave and need to thrive and grow. This is why every society in the world has developed some form of government.”

You’re using the words “anarchy” and “society” in ways that don’t make sense.

“Anarchy” isn’t a thing which creates or destroys. Rational freedom (self rule) is simply a default condition of not being coerced by aggressive force. The absence of something bad doesn’t “destroy” anything. It just means a certain type of bad thing is not there. That is not to say that without government there aren’t predators, mind you. But without the false imprimatur of titles and fancy papers, good people clearly identify the predators for what they are, and aren’t misdirected.

“Society” isn’t an entity with emotions or thoughts (“craving”), or capable of actions (“developing”). What you and others call “society” or “the people” or the “common good” is merely a way to tell the lie that some subset of people represent everyone else, even those who disagree. Governments are made of fallible people, with negative incentives that work against the freedom of the people they rule. They don’t actually represent others. Anyone who paid attention to Pelosi and Reid ramming through the Health Care Deform against the wishes of the majority of Americans can see that clear as day. Those liars will forever more claim that the American people, the “society”, decided to create this health care system. And, people like you will yell “amen” (or, you’ll disagree with them if you’re a Republican type, instead yelling “amen” at Republican lies).

The “stability” you hold up as being more important than the freedom of individuals just another word for “safety”, and as Benjamin Franklin so famously pointed out, people like you who gladly trade freedom for safety will end up with neither.

That wouldn’t be so bad if you only traded your own freedom for a false sense of safety. But you’re cheer leading your “meaner gang” to take away the freedoms of your neighbors to increase your illusion of safety. That’s despicable.

Meanwhile, as you champion government as a panacea against instability, we have all sorts of events, past and future, of financial ruin made possible and made worse by government action. FDR prolonged the Great Depression (just as Bush and Obama are doing with the current recession). Government involvement in the housing market led to a glut of bad loans, which created the recent collapse. Pyramid schemes like Social Security and Medicare are looming on the horizon, certain to wreak untold havoc on our economy. Massive debt is right now, as we sit here, threatening to change our economic status in the world.

And, that’s not even going into the boondoggles of foreign interventions, drug prohibition, etc..

So, tell me exactly how has government created or maintained stability? Are you freaking kidding me?

Again, don’t lie and claim that I’m pretending that anarchy is going to pop out of nowhere to solve everything. There will always be predation and serious problems that human beings have to face, with or without government. The real question is, how exactly is government HELPING, when all evidence shows it makes things worse?

Dennis N (#253): “So continue to pine for anarchy while you pass the bong around. Sane people will pretty much ignore you, as will society, unless you pi$$ them off sufficiently.”

Again, you make things up instead of discussing ethics.

I don’t expect things to get better. I’m just hoping that more people will recognize right and wrong, and stop believing that the “meaner gang” system has any sort of moral probity.

Dennis N (#253): “If you get in society’s way, or become sufficiently irritating, you will be destroyed and then forgotten. Every society in the World has done this, and always will.”

Again, you’re pretending that “society” is something with emotions, thought, and action. What you’re really talking about are the people who wield special powers who do such horrible things. I’ve not forgotten the tens of millions murdered by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk, and no decent person tosses them into the memory hole, either.

I know damned well that people who have or crave power, even under color of law, will often do bad things to those who stand up for their rights and the rights of their neighbors. Why must you keep repeating that mantra to try to intimidate others from advocating individual rights? We get it. You’re on the side of the bad guys.

So what?

That’s nothing to be proud of.

So continue to pine for anarchy while you pass the bong around. Sane people will pretty much ignore you, as will society, unless you pi$$ them off sufficiently.

If you get in society’s way, or become sufficiently irritating, you will be destroyed and then forgotten. Every society in the World has done this, and always will.

BSK (#244): “Doesn’t [anarchy]] simply become a survival of the fittest model? Now, maybe fitness will be determined by reason, as some have suggested. But even reason and discourse doesn’t guarantee freedom from oppression.”

That’s a common strawman used against anarchy and libertarian-type minarchy.

Who asserts there are guarantees? Who asserts that no one will fail in a free market? Who asserts there will not be predators?

BSK (#244): “At least with the government, we have some idea of who we’re being oppressed by and how.”

At least if one’s next-door neighbor is raping a woman, she knows who her rapist is. She can take some comfort there, I suppose.

BSK (#244): “We also have avenues to pursue grievances with this oppression (even if they are not entirely sufficient). In anarchy, I never quite know who or how I’m going to be oppressed and the likely only way to avoid oppression is to become an oppressor myself.”

Uncertainty is not an ethical justification to prohibit the freedom of others to make their own peaceable choices.

This universe is abound with uncertainty. An asteroid or caldera could wipe out most life on Earth tomorrow. You could slip and hit your head. A plane could malfunction and crash down on your head.

Why is it that you think using aggressive force to coerce others is a proper way to deal with uncertainty?

Dennis N (#227): “Anarchy leads to USSRs and Third Reichs.”

The Russian Empire was never a place of peaceful anarchy. The monarchy had massive armies, government bureaucracies, the Russian Orthodox Church, secret police, and the support of a large portion of the population. A costly, protracted war, coupled with organized rebels caused the government to collapse, at which point it was replaced. The chaos and disorder during the transition was not an easing of government rule, but simply a transitional phase. Much of the structures of the old regime were simply manned with new people, with new rules, whose cruelty was driven not by a lack of government power, but as the ultimate fulfillment of government totalitarianism.

The Nazis were voted into office in elections. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the President. 85% of German voters chose to grant him even more power in the August 1934 plebiscite.

I’m beginning to think you know nothing whatsoever of history.

Dennis N (#238): “What are those “defense pacts” other than gangs?”

You’re glossing over the operative word here: “defense”.

Defense does not include aggressive use of force, or the assertion of a monopoly on the use of force.

On a small scale, you’ve got security companies. Business owners and home owners can hire them to patrol, monitor alarm systems, and respond to trouble.

A “gang” isn’t defensive. It’s aggressive.

Dennis N (#238): “What are those trade agreements, other than restrictive cartels?”

Not at all. When I walk into a store, put down a place-holder of value (cash, credit card), and make a peaceful, consensual exchange for items I want, that’s an association of trade. When I pay the kid to mow my lawn or the mechanic to fix my car, that’s trade. Until some government or gang gets involved, demanding to control what we do, the trade is a private matter between two parties.

You’re stuck in the mindset of control, restriction, rule.

I’m looking at freedom, at the ethics of minding one’s own business and interacting with others peacefully, through mutually beneficial, consensual exchanges of values. If your trade pacts compete with mine, then as a rational person, I work harder, faster, better to make my goods and services more attractive to would-be clients.

Dennis N (#238): “What’s to prevent my defense pact from shutting down your trade association because it competes with mine?”

That happens now. Try to compete with the post office or the state lottery. Try to compete with drug dealers. You’ll find that these gangs don’t want competition and will use aggressive force to block you, whether it’s a drive-by shooting or the use of police and courts to enforce restrictive laws (laws not intended to prevent you from harming others, but intended to prevent you from being free to compete with their cronies, their special interests, and such).

In a free society, people would of course need to take care of defending against predators, whether it’s obtaining tools of self-defense or hiring contractors to handle larger scale defense. It’s not like a lack of a powerful government would suddenly make people stupid and helpless. On the contrary, they’d have to face the reality of what it takes to survive.

Dennis N (#238): “Those examples are, in fact, mini governments.”

Those examples are your creation, not mine. They are a product of your narrow, misguided thinking, rather than an honest, rational look at how people can conduct their affairs when left alone.

Dennis N (#238): “We have evolved to the position of nation states, largely as a matter of efficiency. Bigger wars have been easier to avoid, if for no other reason than inertia.”

Did you sleep through World History, once they got to the 20th century?

Larger nation states murdered about 150,000,000 people and enslaved billions. Your arguments make no sense.

The officer was right to enforce the law and right to respond to citizen complaints, even if he didn’t want to be there. He was, and he was doing his job. What’s worth noting is that this idiot woman struggles with him for almost a minute trying to get away. She should just stop, take the ticket and walk away. But she doesn’t. It’s only when the second woman comes in that he takes a swing. At that point, so would I.

“Anti-police bias”? That phrase makes about as much sense as “anti-rape bias.”

Why does any of that other stuff matter? If their prior records justify anything, then you’re seemingly saying that some people are more entitled than others to protection from the police. If they were upstanding citizens who behaved the same way, would that change our response to the situation? If not, that there is no reason to mention in it.

So resisting arrest is a reason to “use discretion”???? Good Grief.

Woman #1, actively and continually resisting/obstructing the officer after first attempting to flee to avoid a citation, is a 19-yr-old with a recent previous arrest for assaulting a police officer. Woman #2, who assaulted the officer and got punched in return, is a 17-yr-old previously charged for beating and robbing a 15-yr-old and later for hot-wiring and stealing a car. Both young women are live-in residents of institutions for troubled teens with behavior problems. What a surprise.

The officer is probably GLAD the cameras were rolling — otherwise he’d be in the news for “unprovoked police brutality.”

…unfortunate incident yes, but let us not lose sight of what happened here – a citizen stupidly decided to go rogue to impress – if you give this a pass, you must give all a pass, then you must not enforce jaywalking to any degree if anyone feels so inclined as to challenge an officer

…a crime is a crime and that is why this country has laws – if you don’t like this, others or any law – get them change

…or, better yet, let’s just become a lawless state

…grow up and get a life, okay?

#232 | Ron Good |
Dennis N wrote: “Anarchy leads to USSRs and Third Reichs.”

So, anarchy leads to…???

Violence.

#231 | Elliot

Dennis N (#228): “Anarchy is nothing more than untrammeled violence.”

Now that the Hobbseian misconception of anarchy is out there, let’s consider the more sensible definition: self rule. That doesn’t mean chaos. It doesn’t mean a free-for-all. People make voluntary, consensual associations (trade, defense pacts, division of labor) because it benefits them. Once you impose rule on them, you’re denying them the right to make their own choices, and restricting their ability to make those voluntary, consensual exchanges.

What are those “defense pacts” other than gangs? What are those trade agreements, other than restrictive cartels? What’s to prevent my defense pact from shutting down your trade association because it competes with mine?

Those examples are, in fact, mini governments. Mini governments fight mini wars, but tend to do so constantly. We have evolved to the position of nation states, largely as a matter of efficiency. Bigger wars have been easier to avoid, if for no other reason than inertia. Things much larger than countries, e.g. empires, have tended to be less stable, although there have been some noteworthy exceptions. Transnational commercial empires are still embryonic.