Response to Mr. Cropper: "Defense in an Anarchist Society"

[fringeelements]

What do you know? You're a communist.

[awsmsc]

I generally agree with your critique, but there are a few things I wanna say:

1 - You misspelled "benefits"

2 - If the Iraq War wasn't profitable, that doesn't mean plundering isn't ever profitable.

3 - PDOs might plunder because they incorrectly think they'll profit or attack to settle a grudge even if they know it won't be profitable

4 - Iraq War costs are winding down and Iraq's GDP may go way up in the future (think post-peak oil) and there's a lot of ores in Afghanistan still untapped

[biped19]

In this period of human evolution Anarchy WILL always devolve into a some sort of state. Anarchy is a nice concept and thought exercise, but it will never work, at least for the next ~1000 years.

[LaughingMan0X]

@biped19

Burden of proof is on you to explain why that'll be the case.

[biped19]

@LaughingMan0X

I will posit that Homo-Sapiens in their current state of evolutionary development will naturally coalesce into groups with shared interests, ideas & needs. Or, simply for protection against those who will not submit to anarchist principals. The Anarchist assumes that through education, or force, they can convince everyone to think alike, which is a contradicts anarchist principals, due to the fact that an idea is being imposed through some form of coercion, no matter how benign.

[LaughingMan0X]

@biped19

"The Anarchist assumes that through education, or force, they can convince everyone to think alike, which is a contradicts anarchist principals, due to the fact that an idea is being imposed through some form of coercion, no matter how benign."

1) What anarchist assumes they can get everyone to think exactly alike?

2) What "anarchist principle" is contradicted?

[dowhat93]

This is why I dismiss the term Anarchy as a system without a state. I believe the term is a contradiction, for it is just another perfect-in-theory way of the deconstruction and reconstruction of public institutions. I'm going as far as to declare that it is the only rational way to view a political revolution.

And by the way, this was not a critique of Anarchist ideology (of which I mostly support), but its naive idealism.

[dowhat93]

(i.e. the American Revolution, the European Renaissance, even Mussolini's Italy.).

Revolutions like these always begin with a significant percentage of public support through a social contract. But as the virtuous circle becomes a vicious one, society becomes due for another revolution, and it will not end and claim say for the entire world forever.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@dowhat93 You named 2 statist revolutions & 1 cultural one.

[dowhat93]

The original point I was trying to make was: Isn't "anarchy" just another revolution in the timeline of continuous reform?

Now I have already completely dismissed Objectivism as an absurd, and frankly unhealthy, philosophy but I do have to agree with Mr.Cropper on the notion that Anarchism is too idealistic for its own good.

Every revolution has ended with the deconstruction of present methods and the institution of a "people's organization."

[dowhat93]

but they are still vulnerable to the imperfections of the ethics of humanity. It is not necessarily a flaw in any economic system, but something that cannot be ignored in society. Society wavers back and forth between vicious and virtuous circles.

To believe that any way of social organization to be the end all of reformation is naive.

[dowhat93]

It seems like every "social reform" that comes from an "anarchist society" is just the deconstruction and reinstitution of seperate states. Ideas like the public trust fund, and voluntary service are almost an allegory for a people's government that protects citizen rights. Now these communities may have different adopted ways of doing things (as the current system of the world is capitalism, which surpassed a system of mercantilism, feudalism, city-states, etc.).

[CorvidTabard]

zeitgeist

[BrettDunbar]

anarchy is pretty stupid

[Twiggy269]

suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of VDO A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of VDO B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smiths complaint and do not recognize the authority of VDO A. What happens then? You have no objective base to arbritrate from, no concrete foundation, no GOVERNMENT to dispute terms of contracts and to pass judgement.

[Twiggy269]

on a side note, I think you should check out my friend LarkenRose here on youtube and his website, he is also an anarchist, and a very smart one at that. I think you would like his speeches, and videos. He is also a novelist and has a fictional book out right now that I think you would throughly enjoy.

[Twiggy269]

Bottom line, the use of force can never be an economic commidity that the rules of implimentation can be changed at whim by whomever decides it wants to change the rules. The rules defining the proper role of the gun or "government" never can be/ or do change. they are static no matter what geographical area you are in, or your belief system. A is A. 2 + 2 = 4 No man, or contract among men can change reality.

[LaughingMan0X]

The rules defining how state violence or that infrastructural/standard-opera­ting mechanisms of the state are ANYTHING but static

1) Gun Bans

2) Federal Reserve

3) Income Tax

4) Prohibition

5) Slavery

6) Secession

All of these issues pertain to rules governing the American state, that have changed drastically over time

You equated a tautology as analogical proof that social conditions don't change. This is false analogy, as it equates something that doesn't change, with something that does

[Twiggy269]

your video is pointless. I stopped at about the 5 minute mark.

Your voluntary defensive organizations that would work together is just a sophisticated way of saying "Government" without saying government. The situation you paint is pretty much exactly what the proper functions of government are, and with a rational government, your association with them is already voluntary since if you choose not to be a part of the "Social contract" you can simply move to another country.

[Twiggy269]

You're attempting to side step the fundamental flaw in anarchy. There is no protection of rights without a government. You can call it voluntary defense organizations all you want, what you described is a government. The only way it is NOT a government is if an individual is free to not sign the contract and not pay for defense, still live in the area and and be able to break the rules set forward by your voluntary contract with no fear of incarceration. You can't have your cake and eat it too

[LaughingMan0X]

An individual is free to not sign a contract and to not pay (or form an agreement) with either a society that has a voluntary social contract (VSC), or, a voluntary defensive organization (VDO), in an anarchist society

However, if someone who decides against signing a contract violates the negative liberty of a person who has signed a VSC, then a VDO can intervene to:

1) Aid in their constituent's self-defense

2) Seek reparations against the aggressor for damages to persons or property

[LaughingMan0X]

There's so much wrong is this post, let me think where to begin.

First, the modern definition of a state essentially comes from Max Weber, and is essentially: "An entity, constituted over a given territorial area, with a monopoly on the use of violence."

A voluntary defensive organization is an organization that individuals have the freedom to opt in and out of, and to even start similar competing defensive organizations.

Ergo, there is no monopoly on violence, hence, it is not a state.

[Twiggy269]

"A voluntary defensive organization is an organization that individuals have the freedom to opt in and out of, and to even start similar competing defensive organizations." - So, how does that not end in mob rule again? My VDO has bigger guns than yours, therfore you're now my slave. I don't give a shit about your VSC, all that matters is 1. how many soliders i have, and 2 how many guns i have. This form of governce that you're explaining was dominant in the beginning of civilization.

[LaughingMan0X]

1) How about watching the video? I addressed this claim explicitly. It makes you seem kind of asinine when you're making assertions and asking questions that have already been addressed in the video

2) The fact that a more powerful society, can invade and dominate a less powerful society is a fact of reality, not an argument for or against any particular system of political, economic, or cultural organization; it applies just as much to states as it does to anarchism.

Ergo you point is moot.

[Twiggy269]

"Interesting, I haven't heard many people argue for slave contracts" - i've chosen only to address your most ridiculous statement here.

It's funny that you assume a "Constitution" is a slave contract. IF a "Constitution" is a properly created document that clearly defines individual rights and the proper functions of a state it is in no way a "Slave contract" simply because you don't sign it. It is protection against ever being a slave. Continued...

[Twiggy269]

having the monopoly over the use of force is paramount in achieving the proper conditions for humans interacting with one another. The proper conditions for humans to live and interact with one another in a civil society never changes. Animals have laws that govern their social structre just like humans. Unlike animals though, humans must consciously realize and accept these necessary preconditions of living in a social society. Theres 2 questions we have to ask now. Continued.

[Twiggy269]

what is the nature and source of individual rights, and how are these rights to be implemented? there is no free market until after force has been excluded. Your approach cannot be applied even to a football game, where it would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.

"Competition" is an economic, not a political, concept; it refers to the voluntary exchange of values, not to the exchange of gunfire.

[Twiggy269]

Your idea of a VDO over a geographical area has many contradictions, like living under a dictatorship in a geographical area. What if one is too poor to afford a VDO? What if they cannot afford to move to a new area? What if the VDO suddenly decides to change the agreements of the VSC? Since they have the guns, whats to stop them from violating your rights? I envision a gestapo like gang of thugs knocking on each door in their area sticking guns in peoples mouths asking for the bag of coins.

[LaughingMan0X]

1) How is living under a dictatorship, (the antithesis of an anarchist society) a contraction for a proposed anarchist institution?

2) When the people of a local sign a VSC, they define the specific way their own institutions will be organized. One society may choose to provide the services of a VDO to all who inhabit their local. Another may require everyone who gets services to pay into a plan. If an individual is too poor, then they can opt for a society which provides services to everyone.

[Twiggy269]

Anarchist society would live under the same fear that every human today lives under (including in the US).

Remember those static axioms? "The proper conditions for humans to live and interact with one another in a civil society never changes." (sorry for quoting myself haha.) What this means is that a "Proper" VSC can never be different from one "State" to another IF it is proper, nor can the basic principles of it ever change (Of course it can be expanded to include new subchapters)

[Twiggy269]

Men are men, nature is nature, the rules that govern men and must be applied for men to live and interact in a civil society are always the same, much like a lion must always hunt prey survive, there are basic preconditions that must be observed before man can achieve his full potential. Axioms of existence cannot be changed because some group of thugs decides it wants to change them. There is only 1 VSC. Or "Constitution" that is proper for man.

[LaughingMan0X]

"What if the VDO suddenly decides to change the agreements of the VSC?"

Then they've committed fraud and violated their obligations, and are now a criminal enterprise. If this occurred, one could reasonably expect that their former constituents would:

1) Revolt against them

2) Opt for (or create) a legitimate VDO to protect themselves from the now criminal organization.

Its like of like saying (in our society) what would happen if the police/military initiated a coup. We'd probability revolt.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

...Robbing people door to door is hardly effective or sustainable. What's to stop those people from arming themselves? Or hiring other guys to defend them? Where did all the cops go?

Maintaining a "gestapo like gang" is expensive-you need a tax base who will give you money no matter how bad a service you provide because of their ideological belief in your overarching institution.

Just look at the gestapo we have now, do you think police could get away with what they can now if people had...

[ThePintsizeslasher]

...The brains or means to take their money else where? Ideologically supported and coercion enforced monopolies aren't "paramount" for anything, they lead to abuse:

ww w[dot] theagitator [dot]com/category*

*/general-criminal-justice/

*/police-professionalism/

*/general-drug-war/

There is little profit in direct violence; cooperation is more effective.

watch?v=uPiU69WX30M

Cooperation emerges,

social[dot] fr33agents[dot] com/profiles/blogs/something-b­eautiful

[LaughingMan0X]

1) I did a video awhile back on anarchist law that's a bit technical sounding, but may add some additional clarity; and you can always ask me clarifying questions.

2) After all force has been excluded? What are you talking about?

3) Competition is both a political and economic concept

The US and former USSR openly competed for: social, economic, political, and military dominance.

Also, just because 1, 2, 10, etc institutions compete, it does not follow that their "competition" is voluntary

[LaughingMan0X]

"Having the monopoly over the use of force is paramount in achieving the proper conditions for humans interacting with one another. The proper conditions for humans to live and interact with one another in a civil society never changes. Animals have laws that govern their social structure just like humans."

You've made many propositions here without justification; so the "burden of proof" is on you here.

[LaughingMan0X]

1) A slave contract is one created by 1 or more individuals which commands that a completely separate individual use his person or property in a way that the individual hasn't consented to

2) The Constitution issues commands outlining how people must act with their person and property.

3) No one alive has signed or consent to the Constitution;

4) The Constitution applies to every person & generation of person in the US

5) Therefore the US Constitution is an inter-generational slave contract

[Twiggy269]

referring to #2. This is the reason that I use quotations when saying "Constitution." I would likely agree with most of the issues you have with the US constitution, which is why I would not use it as a rational example of the proper role of government in a free society. In regarding the static vs. evolving situation. I will concede partly that some rules are ever changing based on technology. (i.e. gun rights can't exist without guns) but the basic axioms of rights don't change. continued.

[Twiggy269]

In regards to the axiom bit, i'm proud you admit to logical axioms! Most skeptics would be squeemish declaring that something exists, and that they are conscious of it. Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. I'm glad we atleast agree on the starting point! Maybe we can work from there later on.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

"This form of governce that you're explaining was dominant in the beginning of civilization."

No slave states were dominant - what you're trying to paint voluntarism as. Do you think you're the first to think of the "what if one group of guys/entity gets guns and rules every1 else" problem? EVERYONE thinks of that because it concerns everyone. Unabashed tyranny is not sustainable unless you have a large(ideologically) willing tax base to externalize costs of war and thuggery....

[LaughingMan0X]

Secondly, you mention that if one chooses not to be apart of this thing called the social contract, you can move to another country.

Social Contracts (as they have existed) have not been predicated on the consent of the people the contract supposedly applies to. No one living has ever signed a social contract (like the US constitution for example), hence if it applies to them despite the fact that they haven't' signed it, it is (by definition) an intergenerational slave contract.

[Twiggy269]

"Social Contracts (as they have existed) have not been predicated on the consent of the people the contract supposedly applies to" - It's not up to each individual to decide what should be covered under a "Social Contract" or constitution. You silly anarchists, you want to have the choice about whether or not you acknowledge individual rights, but you want individual rights to be absolute at the same time. What happens if I decide to not sign the contract?

[LaughingMan0X]

1) Interesting, I haven't heard many people argue for slave contracts

2) One can acknowledge individual rights, with or without signing a contract that defines them explicitly

3) If the anarchist society in question is properly functional, it is likely that if you chose not to sign that contract, that neither your person nor your justly acquired property would be harmed

However, if a criminal decided to do so, the VDO in your local wouldn't necessarily be under any obligation to defend you

[Twiggy269]

on a quick side note,

"it is likely that if you chose not to sign that contract, that neither your person nor your justly acquired property would be harmed"

That, is the most naive statement you've made since I first posted on your video. You need to address this bit of "Faith" you have in your belief system before deep introspection into the rest of it will be possible most likely.

[LaughingMan0X]

I highly suggest you introduce yourself to philosophical skepticism in your approach gaining knowledge in the world

Outside of logical axioms, no one can have certainty about anything; when using induction, one is limited to making propositions that are probabilistically true

EX: If you pay your taxes and don't violate the state's laws it is likely that the state wont kill you.

However this is not "necessarily" true, as cops brutalize and shoot innocent people all the time.

[LaughingMan0X]

It seems that the dichotomy you're posing is: abide by a slave contract or forfeit your property and vacate. This is just a fancy rehashing of the cliche conservative: "America love it or leave it" argument.

It isn't even an argument, precisely because it offers no justification, it's merely an empty idle statement.

[dopeskies]

Proper fucking response

[TheWiretap]

mrcropper is a moron who makes videos with titles like 'anarchism is stupid'. I'd say you're wasting your time, but there's no way in hell that you are wasting your time, this is an excellent, well informed video.

[TheWiretap]

well done for speaking all of this without raising your voice. I tend to get furious on these subjects. I respect your calmness.

[ryamnesty]

Laughing man...are you reading this from chomskys article...just wondering...LOL

[LaughingMan0X]

I typed out some notes, however they (and my argument) are purely my own.

[ryamnesty]

A bright spark!! Cropper annoys me...he doent debate, just soap box mouthing! Of course this response is clear and precise...I'm impressed.

[SocialAnarchism]

MrCropper doesn't seem like he's interested in discussion so much as he is in pissing people off. I'd suggest you not waste you time with his ilk.

[ChurchofMe88]

this seems far more like the sort of anarchism espoused by ancaps than socialists...wow

[LaughingMan0X]

A "public," "participatory" voluntary defensive organization (largely analogous to the Catalonian anarchist militias) ? I'm officially confused.

[porkchopexpress07]

Ayn Rand worshipper pwned.

[Tsukae]

LaughingMan0X, you are one of the few people that keep me on youtube. It is terrible having to deal with the numerous idiots on this site and your videos are one the reasons I continue to log on. Thank you. :)

[Luke12000]

faved!!!

[Xsublime28xX]

This guy just made mr cropper his bitch and I'm loving it lol.

[thewildvagipuss]

I can tell mr cropper hasn't thought much about this issue at all

[MaikUniversum]

people like copper don't think about opposing views at all.

[contrarianbastard]

5 stars for gratuitous use of facts.

[blackacidlizzard]

You know what's stupid? Ayn Rand's ROFL strawman of anarchy.

It kinda made sense when I fist read it, but I wasn't thinking much about it. And I don't remember her saying "the 'states' that are peaceful can not attack the violent 'states'" Not sure if Cropper added that or not. Doesn't matter. His vid deserves a medal. It's a rare day when someone can make so many statements at that level of idiocy in ten minutes.

[abortabraham]

Who knew Cropper was the typical statist know-nothing?

[briano8713]

Any good introductory readings on the efficacy of polycentric law? A fascinating topic, which you seem to have some familiarity with.

[bapyou]

Dude: Don't argue with Cropper. It's not worth your time to engage with someone of such low intelligence. In addition, he's a twat.

[Shezmu]

Well, the low intelligence isn't the problem, that's solvable. Him being a twat who recently admitted that he essentially will not debate people who do not already agree with him, not so much

[legittoquit]

Weren't the spanish anarchists total assholes, who shot people for using money? I read this from Rothbard, though I do not know the specifics, maybe in Catalonia they were cool guys.

PS: I am not a statist, I just don't want to potentially endorse assholes.

[blackacidlizzard]

According to Orwell, they outlawed tipping.

[Cefuroxx]

catalan people can be assholes, but then again isn´t that the anarchist mentality? I lived in barcelona the last year and spoke to several branches of the cnt in the area and read books in english and spanish I didn´t find anything to back that up. It could be true, but I haven´t seen it sourced outside of rothbard.

[ryamnesty]

all people CAN be assholes...pleaze!!!

[Cefuroxx]

I didn´t convey the tone I had meant to, I apologize, I enjoyed my time in catalunya very much and I hope to return soon.

[fps0chris]

you spelled benefits wrong

[LaughingMan0X]

grammar Nazi oppression!

[fps0chris]

haha just trying to help, love your vids keep em coming =]

[GuardofLiberty]

Excellent rebuttal. This issue has become something of a running gag amongst anti-statists. Yet it is the most common thing the ignorant spout out of their mouths.

[spawk1993]

private or statist, true dichotomy.

[D4Shawn]

Ayn Rand never said any of the things you just said, and therefor, your arguments are invalid.

[briano8713]

Lmao.

[DonVoghano]

Ayn Rand was delirious, and probably had an erotic fixation with some kind of Nietzschean Übermensch. A superficial analysis of her bullshit is enough to discard her from both the right and the left wing. That's why she is known only in the US and the rest of the civilized world has dumped her in trash can of philosophy where she belongs.

[XOmniverse]

Don: I disagree. I think most people actually miss her many valid points because, superficially, she comes across as a bit of a cunt and turns people off from her.

Your last sentence is little more than an appeal to consensus to validate your own views.

That being said, I'm an anarchist, and disagree with both Rand and Mr. Cropper on the topic.

[cellardoor01]

Ugh more like mister crapper. Excellent response, but I think the distinction of public vs. private being made here is really irrelevant, the point is that the monopoly of the state has been broken, and Mr. C cannot wrap his brain around it. It could be called a dinglehopper-institution and he still wouldn't get it.

[fede2]

what the hell is the "malevolent universe premise"?

[briano8713]

That if anyone got the chance they would kill you and everyone you care about.

[brainpolice2]

Why do you accept the "malevolent universe premise", Mr. Cropper? :)

[LaughingMan0X]

Well, you see, there was this guy named Azrienoch on YouTube, and he single-handedly solved all the problems of philosophy.

Being a raging pomo, he accepted the "malevolent universe premise."

Seeing this clearly, I thought to myself: "hey, if he accepted it, then why not I? He's certainly got a lot going for him, so I ought to share in his success by accepting the premise"

[DonVoghano]

This whole explanation is useless as it is: the fulcrum is the social contract. If the first constituent contract is not capable to predict and prevent factional and personal take-overs of the armed institution then the institution will likely end up corrupted.

It takes very little for an armed faction to realize that it can force the constituency to pay "protection money." If you wanna learn how an armed organization can work all you have to do is look at militias and mafias the world over...

[DonVoghano]

A relatively small armed organization within a community will not attempt to "pillage," that's preposterous. It would rather become a parasitic organization, growing in power and likely entrapping and absorbing the civilian population.

The comparison with US wars is just as ridiculous, you know very well it has very little to do with "pillaging" and a lot to do with keeping a certain world order for US business elite. No price is too high to defend the Masters of the Universe.

[Kbiomech]

however, that problem can be ameliorated simply by universal armament.

I know I am NOT in the majority here, but I have always believed that individual armament was the first requisite to liberty. I believed that long before I came to view the state as illegitimate entirely.

I don't have the time to go into that really seriously right now, but that's how a "lesser" force wins. Decentralization is an effective war tactic as well as an efficient propagator of liberty.

[DonVoghano]

The risks of universal armament greatly surpass the benefits. Once again it's a matter of simple data observation: wherever arms are more readily available violent deaths increase astronomically, and in certain areas greatly affect the quality of every-day life.

Decentralization is vital in general, but the tool of violence is a very very complex one to address. So far Social Democratic states have the best track record in recorded history with it, though by no means perfect.