10 ms·

Well, what else is the state if not a group of criminals who, through use of violence, coerce people into accepting their authority and following their rules (w

Well, what else is the state if not a group of criminals who, through use of violence, coerce people into accepting their authority and following their rules (which in most cases don't protect the interest of the people, only the interest of the state)? It's a pretty libertarian/voluntarist view. There is nothing childish about it. I listed the state as an example because the state is seemingly the only entity which tries to outlaw voluntary peaceful exchanges. There is a term for practice of peaceful human action that for some weird reason is disallowed by the state [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics

pfraze 13y ago
You're right that the state holds a monopoly on violence. You're wrong that the interests of the state are significantly misaligned from the interests of the people, or that black markets are wholly benign in nature. Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish - as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction. It's an overly-extreme position. I do think that automated systems that don't require bureaucratic governance are a good idea, so I'm particularly annoyed by projects like this because it can create a negative public image. You can apply the concepts much more proactively.
- stealsomesteel 13y ago
  >as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction This is bullshit. You definitely didn't live under corrupt south america regimes. Or in Soviet Union. Or in Belarus (author's location AFAICS). If the law is very bad (e.g. death penalty for homosexuality), then it's not people who are wrong when they're breaking it.
  - goshakkk 13y ago
    In there, they don't allow you to practice peaceful protest to the current regime by simply walking into the streets and clapping. No signs, no speeches, no anything. Just a crowd clapping is outlawed. Among other things, they fined a one-handed (!) man for clapping (!). Do you think it is proper to still practice obedience to the rulers in this case? What is different in the case of anonymous voluntary exchange? Sure, they can outlaw clapping. Or breathing. Or being over 1m tall. Or anything. But just the fact that these people might tell you "breathing is bad" or "being 1m+ is terrible" does not make it actually this way.
  - pfraze 13y ago
    Belarus has the Web, and will be aware of a project like this. DPR was just arrested by the Feds, and one of their primary sources was his forum posts. Do you see what I'm saying here? This is in poor judgement.
- frank_boyd 13y ago
  > You're wrong that the interests of the state are significantly misaligned from the interests of the people You should read the news more often: Government shutdown for no valid reason, Wall Street corruption going unpunished and ongoing (those weren't the last financial scandals), the approval rate of Congress nearing the bottom, one could write a book about how the government has stopped representing the People...
- baddox 13y ago
  > Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish - as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction. African Americans during the civil rights movement benefited from government (roads, etc.) and also used very public law-breaking as a fundamental tactic.
  - pfraze 13y ago
    I think your referring to civil disobedience, which was a PR tactic for highlighting racial abuse under Jim Crow, not a system for selling contraband. I think a more accurate comparison would be to the speak-easys and moonshine of the 20s. Handing out flyers with your name and plans for a speak-easy market would've been just as misguided.
    - pogue 13y ago
      If that is the case of the author, thats probably true. I viewed this more as a discussion in the theoretical of what could be accomplished. Post a paper about how it could be done, and perhaps some more inclined (and anonymous) individual might do the work.
- baddox 13y ago
  The misalignment of state and public interests is not mutually exclusive with the people benefiting from the government. To use a deliberately childish (though still valid) analogy, livestock benefits a lot from farming, but I would argue that (personified) livestock's interests are not aligned with the interests of the farmers.
- blar 13y ago
  I'm pretty much in total agreement with you, but to nitpick on one thing you said: > as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction _Peaceful_ civil disobedience campaigns played a large role in the Civil Rights movement and helped raise awareness leading to (in the US, at least) the Civil Rights Act - thereby reinforcing equal protections and voting rights. The intent is important; and the NONVIOLENT aspect is especially important. But civil disobedience isn't always necessarily a bad thing. Nor is it always a childish suggestion.
- hugogee 13y ago
  Ha! I would protect cows from wolves if I got to milk and eat them daily. Lucky moo.
- goshakkk 13y ago
  > Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish Did I ask the state to provide me with all these "benefits" in exchange for being enslaved and having guns and threats at me? If the government thinks I need its X, Y, and Z services, or whatever and uses it as a basis for theft, is it any good? Is it different from, say, me saying that apples are good for you, therefore I can point a gun at you, violently take your money and buy you a fucking apple? You know, because it's good for you! No? Surely I am benefiting you in this case so you have to shut up and blindly obey. Every single thing that the government does can be not only just provided, but provided more efficiently (and also more morally) on a free market.
mden 13y ago
I don't understand the willful ignorance of libertarians who make the claim that the state doesn't do anything outside of extorting people and ruling with guns. Yes, there are problems with every single government ever made, and there will be for the foreseeable future, but there a lot of obviously good things that come as a result of having a state. Listing them seems silly, but apparently it's not considering how many libertarians share your view. Things like protecting weaker parties through a court system, providing national infrastructure for the economic prosperity of everyone (as opposed to private infrastructure for the prosperity of few), national defense, food and water regulation, base level research and development, protection from criminals, corporate regulation, are only a few that immediately come to mind.
- pogue 13y ago
  I see this as more of a discussion of the politics of _why_ a black market should exist, more than recognizing that it does and people want it. There is never going to be a completely deregulated marketplace for everyone. A SilkRoad 2.0 is an idea for an elitist market where only the technically skilled can use it properly and correctly, and thus becomes self limiting on its own. I see it like this: a few like minded people want to trade things that many high minded people would rather not exist or don't want to be openly sold (whichever you prefer) without having boot clodding storm troopers kick down your door and take away your ability to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is just a simple progression/evolution of the black market.
- jsnk 13y ago
  Libertarians have no problem admitting that the state may do some good in some regards. In fact, it could potentially be an immensely positive force. I think where libertarian attitude diverge away from the mainstream view is that the state is nevertheless evil. Perhaps a necessary evil to run the world so to speak, but still evil because it must violate rights of people to exist by definition.
  - mden 13y ago
    It's a fair point that most libertarians aren't for the complete removal of the state. However, in my experience they seem to try to vastly simplify many issues by waving their hands and talking about the non-aggression principle as if that automatically solves everything. The truth is, while there may be laws which are unjust, unfair, or plain silly, most of them were created to meet a need or solve a problem. Sometimes it's very easy to forget that. A good friend of mine is an anarcho-capitalist and while he is overall a very technical, very logical, and generally smart person, neither of us have managed to convince the other that their view-point is flawed. It's rather frustrating.
simbolit 13y ago
I am not terribly taken by the book as a whole, but you would probably profit from reading the first chapters of "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism" [0]. [0] you can find an epub with a simple google search, or listen to this talk by the author, who unfortunately has a thick korean accent: http://youtu.be/whVf5tuVbus?#t=4m http://youtu.be/whVf5tuVbus?#t=4m Edit: correction

pfraze 13y ago

You're right that the state holds a monopoly on violence. You're wrong that the interests of the state are significantly misaligned from the interests of the people, or that black markets are wholly benign in nature. Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish - as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction. It's an overly-extreme position. I do think that automated systems that don't require bureaucratic governance are a good idea, so I'm particularly annoyed by projects like this because it can create a negative public image. You can apply the concepts much more proactively.

stealsomesteel 13y ago
>as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction This is bullshit. You definitely didn't live under corrupt south america regimes. Or in Soviet Union. Or in Belarus (author's location AFAICS). If the law is very bad (e.g. death penalty for homosexuality), then it's not people who are wrong when they're breaking it.
- goshakkk 13y ago
  In there, they don't allow you to practice peaceful protest to the current regime by simply walking into the streets and clapping. No signs, no speeches, no anything. Just a crowd clapping is outlawed. Among other things, they fined a one-handed (!) man for clapping (!). Do you think it is proper to still practice obedience to the rulers in this case? What is different in the case of anonymous voluntary exchange? Sure, they can outlaw clapping. Or breathing. Or being over 1m tall. Or anything. But just the fact that these people might tell you "breathing is bad" or "being 1m+ is terrible" does not make it actually this way.
- pfraze 13y ago
  Belarus has the Web, and will be aware of a project like this. DPR was just arrested by the Feds, and one of their primary sources was his forum posts. Do you see what I'm saying here? This is in poor judgement.
frank_boyd 13y ago
> You're wrong that the interests of the state are significantly misaligned from the interests of the people You should read the news more often: Government shutdown for no valid reason, Wall Street corruption going unpunished and ongoing (those weren't the last financial scandals), the approval rate of Congress nearing the bottom, one could write a book about how the government has stopped representing the People...
baddox 13y ago
> Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish - as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction. African Americans during the civil rights movement benefited from government (roads, etc.) and also used very public law-breaking as a fundamental tactic.
- pfraze 13y ago
  I think your referring to civil disobedience, which was a PR tactic for highlighting racial abuse under Jim Crow, not a system for selling contraband. I think a more accurate comparison would be to the speak-easys and moonshine of the 20s. Handing out flyers with your name and plans for a speak-easy market would've been just as misguided.
  - pogue 13y ago
    If that is the case of the author, thats probably true. I viewed this more as a discussion in the theoretical of what could be accomplished. Post a paper about how it could be done, and perhaps some more inclined (and anonymous) individual might do the work.
baddox 13y ago
The misalignment of state and public interests is not mutually exclusive with the people benefiting from the government. To use a deliberately childish (though still valid) analogy, livestock benefits a lot from farming, but I would argue that (personified) livestock's interests are not aligned with the interests of the farmers.
blar 13y ago
I'm pretty much in total agreement with you, but to nitpick on one thing you said: > as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction _Peaceful_ civil disobedience campaigns played a large role in the Civil Rights movement and helped raise awareness leading to (in the US, at least) the Civil Rights Act - thereby reinforcing equal protections and voting rights. The intent is important; and the NONVIOLENT aspect is especially important. But civil disobedience isn't always necessarily a bad thing. Nor is it always a childish suggestion.
hugogee 13y ago
Ha! I would protect cows from wolves if I got to milk and eat them daily. Lucky moo.
goshakkk 13y ago
> Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish Did I ask the state to provide me with all these "benefits" in exchange for being enslaved and having guns and threats at me? If the government thinks I need its X, Y, and Z services, or whatever and uses it as a basis for theft, is it any good? Is it different from, say, me saying that apples are good for you, therefore I can point a gun at you, violently take your money and buy you a fucking apple? You know, because it's good for you! No? Surely I am benefiting you in this case so you have to shut up and blindly obey. Every single thing that the government does can be not only just provided, but provided more efficiently (and also more morally) on a free market.

mden 13y ago

I don't understand the willful ignorance of libertarians who make the claim that the state doesn't do anything outside of extorting people and ruling with guns. Yes, there are problems with every single government ever made, and there will be for the foreseeable future, but there a lot of obviously good things that come as a result of having a state. Listing them seems silly, but apparently it's not considering how many libertarians share your view. Things like protecting weaker parties through a court system, providing national infrastructure for the economic prosperity of everyone (as opposed to private infrastructure for the prosperity of few), national defense, food and water regulation, base level research and development, protection from criminals, corporate regulation, are only a few that immediately come to mind.

pogue 13y ago
I see this as more of a discussion of the politics of _why_ a black market should exist, more than recognizing that it does and people want it. There is never going to be a completely deregulated marketplace for everyone. A SilkRoad 2.0 is an idea for an elitist market where only the technically skilled can use it properly and correctly, and thus becomes self limiting on its own. I see it like this: a few like minded people want to trade things that many high minded people would rather not exist or don't want to be openly sold (whichever you prefer) without having boot clodding storm troopers kick down your door and take away your ability to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is just a simple progression/evolution of the black market.
jsnk 13y ago
Libertarians have no problem admitting that the state may do some good in some regards. In fact, it could potentially be an immensely positive force. I think where libertarian attitude diverge away from the mainstream view is that the state is nevertheless evil. Perhaps a necessary evil to run the world so to speak, but still evil because it must violate rights of people to exist by definition.
- mden 13y ago
  It's a fair point that most libertarians aren't for the complete removal of the state. However, in my experience they seem to try to vastly simplify many issues by waving their hands and talking about the non-aggression principle as if that automatically solves everything. The truth is, while there may be laws which are unjust, unfair, or plain silly, most of them were created to meet a need or solve a problem. Sometimes it's very easy to forget that. A good friend of mine is an anarcho-capitalist and while he is overall a very technical, very logical, and generally smart person, neither of us have managed to convince the other that their view-point is flawed. It's rather frustrating.

simbolit 13y ago

I am not terribly taken by the book as a whole, but you would probably profit from reading the first chapters of "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism" [0]. [0] you can find an epub with a simple google search, or listen to this talk by the author, who unfortunately has a thick korean accent: http://youtu.be/whVf5tuVbus?#t=4m http://youtu.be/whVf5tuVbus?#t=4m Edit: correction