Anarchy: A Temporary Condition

Order and hierarchy are acceptable as long as they're not coercive.

If a buncha people decides to build a power plant, presumably they're going to defer to the expertise of the guy that actually knows how to do it. If they don't, they'll probably fail.

As long as the guy in charge doesn't say ''do X or I'll deprive you of life/liberty", it's fine.

What if their liberty infringes on someones else's? Like someone on PCP going berserk and attacking people, for instance. Who stops them?

Okay, so a group of people decide to build a nuclear plant. Some guy claims to know how to do it, everyone else says "okay, good enough", it gets built. Sloppily, it turns out, and it ends up releasing radioactive slag into a river, poisoning the communities downstream.

A community downriver, perhaps having a more competent engineer, may have seen the accident coming, but intervening beforehand would be "coercion".

If they're not okay with having their water supply contaminated, interfering with the plant processes would be self-defense.

Am I the only person in the world who is okay being a follower? I like being told what to do. Its why I'm a player and not a dungeon master in Dungeons And Dragons !

I mean, I dont want to be a slave and follow orders mindlessly but I never understood the concept of someone always wanting to go "SCREW YOU MAN I'LL DO WHAT I WANT" or rebel without a cause if you will.

"Am I the only person in the world who is okay being a follower?"

You're hardly alone, going by most folk.

"I like being told what to do. Its why I'm a player and not a dungeon master in Dungeons & Dragons !"

False dichotomy. I prefer neither to lead, nor be led.

The king suffers his own type of bondage—to the needs of his subjects. So yeah, fuck that.

edited 23rd Jun '11 10:31:51 AM by MRDA1981

I dunno, what I mean is just, I dont want to be told what to do for EVERYTHING but I can never see myself in a position of leadership.

I was always chosen for the leader of roles in school (I was like one of 4 kids who actually gave a damn) and I ALWAYS had to wrangle the dumb kids into doing shit, and it just was exhausting. How anyone likes being a leader is beyond me.

Some people like the feeling of authority and power, some people don't mind persuading others.

The world has lots of different kinds of folks in it.

So, can preemptive action count as self-defence?

If there's a high probability of being physically harmed otherwise, yes.

edited 23rd Jun '11 10:34:45 AM by MRDA1981

Within reason, yes.

Well, if you catch a dude making a bomb and with plans to, say, blow your house apart...

I'd say you'd be justified in shooting him. But at the very least the guy who is acted against pre-emptively should be making obvious preparations to attack/harm a non-consenting party.

I don't like what he does is way different from he's raising a gang of thugs to attack us.

In short? Yes, within reason.

And guess what happens when it turns out that different people have different ideas of what counts as "within reason".

Absolute anarchy is impossible. Either you have Might Makes Right or minarchy (could be cool) or division into small communities (also could be cool, but those communities would probably fight each other for power and merge into bigger communities until we get something similar to modern states).

edited 23rd Jun '11 12:49:36 PM by nzm1536

So, what, then, do you do in the case like the nuclear plant I suggested, where people are not intentionally preparing to harm another, but are nonetheless on a course that will most probably lead to harming others?

Raise the issue with the plant folk?

See, I'm reminded of the example I brought up in one of these threads before about mangroves.

If people with waterfront houses chop down the mangroves, the ocean ecosystem will go to hell and there will be no fish. I rather like my non-polluted waters, not to mention my seafood and my natural beauties like the Barrier Reef. But under a system like this nobody can stop people from cutting down mangroves if they want to because it's not really 'harming' me or anybody else.

Well, if it comes down to it, I just hate Hunter Gatherer because I love my technology too much.

And having to do all that work gathering food and stuff, I would rather go to the store and buy stuff instead. I prefer a society of less freedom if it lets me live in comfort. And if it comes to being part of a dictatorship? Then I'd join the secret police and get an Evil Is Cool style uniform.

edited 23rd Jun '11 3:25:26 PM by NickTheSwing

@Tangent: Easy. They have no business poisoning our water. First thing of all, those affected by the nuclear plant would be entitled to demand it was built safely or not built at all.

If they tried to build an unsafe nuclear plant, we'd be entitled to stop them, 'cause they ain't got no business poisoning our resources. If they try, you stop'em.

Wait, so you say you are permitted to stop them from doing something that hasn't caused harm yet, and that they don't expect to cause harm?

Just because one person is a dumbass who can't see the consequences of their actions doesn't mean you can't realize what the consequences are and stop them.

Does this mean you've been spying on the commune down the river the entire time? How are you expected to know that the plant is going to fail?

It's up the river, and the presumption in the initial example was that it was being sloppily built, and thus unsafe. If you're worried about the particulars that is rather silly.

Buncha dudes are building a nuclear reactor that looks shoddy, with an obvious lack of resources and expertise. They refuse to accept outside views and they consistently refuse to provide those it might affect with any guarantee, safeguard or reassurance whatsoever.

Eventually, the affected guys stop construction by temporarily seizing the site. The dudes building it will then have to either do it right or not do it.

Also, how can you stop them without exerting coercive authority? (This has always struck me as one of the unhelpful points of all-out libertarianism, although I can see arguing for "minimum necessary coercive authority", with lots of oversight and accountability).