4 ms·

I'm going to respond to all three of your comments here. Government is that. When you have something that is enforcing a social contract, that is government. N

by bena 8y ago

I'm going to respond to all three of your comments here. Government is that. When you have something that is enforcing a social contract, that is government. Not every government requires a building, elected officials, etc. It is simply the means organizational policies are enforced. And your village is an organization. It has policies. Your system of ostracizing is the mechanism by which you punish citizens who don't follow the rules of anarchy. So, if someone in one of those villages murdered someone else, nothing would happen? Nothing would stop them? If I want your stuff, I can just take it. Nothing will happen? Or will the entire village exact punishment? How is that any different to what we have? Your problem is that you don't agree with all of the rules we do have. You want those rules gone. And you think that everyone thinks like you so that if we had "no rules" (aka just the rules you like), we'd all be happy. And I never said my argument is "we can't get there from here". I never even suggested that in the slightest. Bringing it up again and again is arguing against someone who isn't here. So I don't care what you think about that one way or the other. My point is that anarchy leads to government. Always. Because there will be rules some people want enforced and they will accept rules they're not thrilled with if it means they get most of the rules they do want. Also. This is just straight up government. If that's your idea of the ideal anarchy, then your ideal anarchy is government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

pdonis 8y ago
> When you have something that is enforcing a social contract, that is government. Only if the enforcement is coercive. Otherwise the term "government" is meaningless, since every social interaction can be viewed as some kind of "enforcement" of some "social contract". Enforcement by the voluntary choices of other people not to associate with you if you do things they don't like is not government. > So, if someone in one of those villages murdered someone else, nothing would happen? Not at all. Instead of concocting straw men, you should go read Friedman's treatment of saga period Iceland. > I never said my argument is "we can't get there from here". Fine. Other people have made that kind of argument, so I'll just respond to them on it from now on.
- bena 8y ago
  No, coercion is not a requirement for government. That's another definition you're trying to overload. Also, what happens if I don't agree with a rule. And then I break it? If there is some sort of punishment, then there is coercion. Fear of punishment is a coercive device. Then what happens. Tell us that. "Nuh uh" is not a coherent defense. The period of Iceland mentioned in that book was a federation headed by a monarchy. That's a government.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > coercion is not a requirement for government Then you and I are defining the word "government" differently. What I am arguing against is coercive enforcement of rules. You can call it whatever you want; if you don't want to call it "government", then let's just avoid using that word at all so we at least know what we're talking about. > what happens if I don't agree with a rule. And then I break it? If there is some sort of punishment, then there is coercion Then, once again, you are giving different meanings to words than I am. "Coercion" as I am using the term means forcing people to do things they would not voluntarily choose to do. Letting people voluntarily choose to do something, in the full knowledge that they will suffer consequences, and then imposing those consequences, is not coercion. Also, you use the word "punishment", but I haven't used that word. I have not talked about throwing people in jail. I have only talked about things like refusing to interact with someone. Unless you are going to claim that you have a right to have other people interact with you, no matter how much of an asshole you are, then I don't see how you can call it "coercion" when people refuse to interact with you because you refuse to regulate your behavior in order to facilitate cooperation. Violent consequences are a more complicated matter, yes, but (as is discussed, for example, in Friedman's book) there is still a key difference between violent consequences from private entities (who have to weigh the possibility that they will in turn be targeted by violent consequences from other private entities) and violent consequences from governments (which do not suffer any consequences in turn, because they are allowed to do things that would be considered crimes, at least on their face, if private entities did them--in fact, this is how Friedman defines a government).
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > Then what happens. Tell us that. As I've already said, that's way too complicated for an HN comment. Which is why I've referred, multiple times now, to a book-length treatment of the subject.
pdonis 8y ago
> Your problem is that you don't agree with all of the rules we do have Where did I say that? At least as far as the major rules (don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat, etc.), I have no problem with those at all. I'm sure we could find disagreements over minor rules (for example, I don't think laws that impose penalties when no harm has been done, such as most traffic laws, should exist), but those aren't what I'm talking about in this discussion. What I'm talking about in this discussion is the fact that governments (a) don't actually uphold the rules that the vast majority of us agree on, and (b) impose lots of other rules that the majority of us don't even want, but get put in place because some special interest group grabs enough attention to get them on politicians' radar, even though the proposed rules don't even fix the "problem" that triggered them in the first place.

by bena 8y ago

pdonis 8y ago

> When you have something that is enforcing a social contract, that is government. Only if the enforcement is coercive. Otherwise the term "government" is meaningless, since every social interaction can be viewed as some kind of "enforcement" of some "social contract". Enforcement by the voluntary choices of other people not to associate with you if you do things they don't like is not government. > So, if someone in one of those villages murdered someone else, nothing would happen? Not at all. Instead of concocting straw men, you should go read Friedman's treatment of saga period Iceland. > I never said my argument is "we can't get there from here". Fine. Other people have made that kind of argument, so I'll just respond to them on it from now on.

bena 8y ago
No, coercion is not a requirement for government. That's another definition you're trying to overload. Also, what happens if I don't agree with a rule. And then I break it? If there is some sort of punishment, then there is coercion. Fear of punishment is a coercive device. Then what happens. Tell us that. "Nuh uh" is not a coherent defense. The period of Iceland mentioned in that book was a federation headed by a monarchy. That's a government.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > coercion is not a requirement for government Then you and I are defining the word "government" differently. What I am arguing against is coercive enforcement of rules. You can call it whatever you want; if you don't want to call it "government", then let's just avoid using that word at all so we at least know what we're talking about. > what happens if I don't agree with a rule. And then I break it? If there is some sort of punishment, then there is coercion Then, once again, you are giving different meanings to words than I am. "Coercion" as I am using the term means forcing people to do things they would not voluntarily choose to do. Letting people voluntarily choose to do something, in the full knowledge that they will suffer consequences, and then imposing those consequences, is not coercion. Also, you use the word "punishment", but I haven't used that word. I have not talked about throwing people in jail. I have only talked about things like refusing to interact with someone. Unless you are going to claim that you have a right to have other people interact with you, no matter how much of an asshole you are, then I don't see how you can call it "coercion" when people refuse to interact with you because you refuse to regulate your behavior in order to facilitate cooperation. Violent consequences are a more complicated matter, yes, but (as is discussed, for example, in Friedman's book) there is still a key difference between violent consequences from private entities (who have to weigh the possibility that they will in turn be targeted by violent consequences from other private entities) and violent consequences from governments (which do not suffer any consequences in turn, because they are allowed to do things that would be considered crimes, at least on their face, if private entities did them--in fact, this is how Friedman defines a government).
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Then what happens. Tell us that. As I've already said, that's way too complicated for an HN comment. Which is why I've referred, multiple times now, to a book-length treatment of the subject.

pdonis 8y ago

> Your problem is that you don't agree with all of the rules we do have Where did I say that? At least as far as the major rules (don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat, etc.), I have no problem with those at all. I'm sure we could find disagreements over minor rules (for example, I don't think laws that impose penalties when no harm has been done, such as most traffic laws, should exist), but those aren't what I'm talking about in this discussion. What I'm talking about in this discussion is the fact that governments (a) don't actually uphold the rules that the vast majority of us agree on, and (b) impose lots of other rules that the majority of us don't even want, but get put in place because some special interest group grabs enough attention to get them on politicians' radar, even though the proposed rules don't even fix the "problem" that triggered them in the first place.