The following debate orginally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “The ‘Social Contract’ Doesn’t Exist“…
Rayn: “But.. muh social ‘contract’ proves that they are!” – Shit Statists Say
Hmm… since when are non-consensual arrangements fabricated upon invisible paper with invisible ink referred to as “contracts”? Just more proof that Statism Is A Cult!
Katherine C.: Without getting into an exhausting conversation, I’m just curious that since anarchy by definition is the absolute freedom of the individual, regardless of political views, what would an anarchist do about murderers, paedophiles, and the like since they would be technically free to do whatever they’d like, according to anarchists?
Greg C.: Summary execution on the fuckin spot. Get caught doin something fucked up out comes the 45 and down they go…
Rayn: As I explained to you previously, Katherine, when you misunderstood the concept of Anarchy in our last debate: the word simply means “no rulers.” And, when this concept is properly and logically understood, using PROOF, instead of romantic fables and foundation-free myth, it is clear that the REASON we have no legitimate rulers is because of the self-evident fact that we are ALL born with our very own Individual sovereignty (AKA Self-ownership). With this logic understood correctly, we are NOT, in any way “technically free to do whatever [we] like,” because that would imply a host of actions which would completely violate the Individual Sovereignty of those around us. Realize that Anarchy is not at all chaos, but rather: peace, respect, liberty, and the only real equality there is! I absolutely own myself… and, so do you, my friend!
Indeed, these inaccurate ideas about Anarchy you have been suggesting here are very pervasive within our society, due to repeated efforts, over a long period of time, by the elitist, ruling class, and their minions, alike, to hijack this word, and run it into the ground, in hopes of quelling the evolution of humanity, in favor of CONTROL and BONDAGE. And, it is precisely this co-opting of the term that has caused real Anarchists to avoid it, in order to embrace the more-accurately-descriptive word, “Voluntaryism,” which, by definition, is founded upon the reality of Individual sovereignty and the Non-aggression principle that binds it. There is no wiggle-room for claiming Voluntaryism to be CHAOS, when CONSENT and COOPERATION are written into the very term, itself! 🙂
Meanwhile, “the absolute freedom of the individual,” you mention, as my last two paragraphs describe, is best-referred to as “Individual sovereignty,” and as I also mentioned, can only be acknowledged and exercised in regards to EVERY SINGLE OTHER INDIVIDUAL IN EXISTENCE, as well. Therefore, any efforts to impose upon or violate the Individual sovereignty of another makes that violator JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPTED RULER – and, hence, DOES NOT qualify as ANARCHY!
As for your notion of Anarchy being exercised “regardless of political views,” you must learn to shake off such preconceived notions, so that you can open your eyes to the fact that Anarchism is actually apolitical/anti-political (or, as Gerald Celente so aptly describes it, “political atheism”). The words “politics,” and even “policy” and “police,” are all based in the same root word, “polis,” which is the Greek term for “city, one’s city; the state, citizens” – or, as we would understand it, in modern terms, a State-based control grid of rulers and subjects.
Before I move on to your question about justice, I would like to ask you a few question of my own: Do you honestly believe, that without the arbitrary mandates of the morally-bankrupt “rulers” of our societies, that you would run around robbing, assaulting and murdering those around you? And, my follow-up question, is much like the first: Do you believe that I would engage in this sort of violation of others without these “rulers” controlling me? If your answer to these two questions are “no,” then I have two more questions: Do you believe that the both of us are morally-superior to the rest of society? Do you believe that most people are criminals?
If your answers to these last two questions are “no,” then I have one more question: If we are all currently under the authority of a tiny “elect” gaggle of corrupt politicians, and their many police, who claim to “serve” us as “rulers,” in order to protect us from a SMALL MINORITY of criminals (the ONLY group they are supposed to have any jurisdiction over), then why would you DARE consent to being ruled their thousands upon thousands of pre-crime-based “laws,” almost all of which are in full violation of common-sense logic of No Victim, No Crime, when such “legality” only turn YOU into a criminal, giving them full jurisdiction over your life, liberty and property, in the process?
Meanwhile, if you happened to answer “yes” to any of the last two questions I posed in my original inquiry, then why would on Earth would you willing consent to a government made up of the SAME EXACT people you believe are so very criminal to the core, as though your cooperation would somehow legally shield you from such criminality? Wouldn’t you simply be providing the very criminals you are so worried about with the LAWFUL MEANS to rob, assault and murder you, with absolutely NO REAL PROTECTION against their crimes, too, since you basically handed them a full LEGAL MONOPOLY on the execution of societal “justice’?
“If men [act] good, you don’t need government; if men [act] evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.” – Robert LeFevre
Rayn: Finally, since you question what would happen to those who violate the Non-aggression principle in an Anarchist society, and engage in criminal misdeeds against the innocent and peaceful, Katherine, the most IMMEDIATE solution to such situations would obviously come in the form of the natural right to Self-defense that our Self-ownership demands of us (and just about all members of the animal kingdom). Of course, this sort of defense could either be Individually-executed, or it could even be hired out, in the form of bodyguards, or security details, or prevention-loss security, depending on Individual decision, as this would take place within the truly free-market, voluntary-association of Agorism, which goes hand-in-hand with Voluntaryism. Defense could even come in non-profit, or purely volunteer-based forms, as well – up unto and including, all friends, family and neighbors who have a vested interest in the well-being of the (potential?) victim, or even the community the victim lives within. Now, the hired defense explanation may possibly sound impossible to you, but rest assured that it’s already happening under the State-model! The only difference is that the State happens to have a MONOPOLY on this very vital service, which has led to NOTHING but UNACCOUNTABILITY and MAJOR CORRUPTION!
You must understand, in the end, that we’re talking about Anarchy, here. And, to fully grasp the concept of Anarchism, you’d have to unlearn a great deal of collectivist and Statist modes of thinking, finally recognizing that there are an infinte number of possible solutions and ideas that would be attempted for all issues, problems, and even modes of happiness, under the sun. And, all would be given their opportunity to work or fail among the many Anarchist individuals and communities full of Anarchists, that would Voluntarily choose and consent to Individually enact them, or do so as as a unanimous group. Consent is key. With this in mind, no two Anarchists, or groups of Anarchists, would necessarily decide upon the same path towards protection against crimininals, nor any particular way they would choose to function within their societies, or as a specific society. The principles that guide Anarchists – the Voluntaryism and Non-Aggression Principle inherent to Individual Sovereignty – would be their only common ground, while all would retain the infinite potential for choice and ideas that all human beings deserve to exercise! Personally, I believe that the control-freaks of the world have been exploited this beautiful potential-based aspect of Anarchy into their pathetic, fallacious “Anarchy is chaos” deceptions, in an effort to have their subjects believe that too many choices would overwhelm their corrupt system, as “nothing would get done” (which, apparently usually consists of slavery, mass murder and genocide, for purposes of theft). And, yet, NATURE HERSELF THRIVES ON DIVERSITY, as dictated by BIOLOGY! So, the concept of blind conformity and uniformity for the sake of (thieving, murdering) “progress” is just about as anti-“evolutionary” as a Statheist can possibly get, though they all claim to believe in such theories! There’s absolutely no consistency in such ill logic, nor respect for Individuality and human life in it, for that matter!
In the book 1984, Orwell aptly described this sort of mindless Statist groupthink brainwash with the IngSoc party slogan, “Freedom is Slavery.” It perfectly illustrates a completely State-manufactured mindset for the general population to consume in pure fear, cleverly created for the sole purpose of CONTROLLING the INTELLECTUALLY- and SPIRITUALLY- SLEEPWALKERS among us!
In reality, no matter the means of achieving hired defense, in regard to the options I just described, in a truly free market (much unlike the dealings of the corrupt State, and the crony capitalism it fuels), the REPUTATION businesses create and build through consistent and QUALITY SERVICE is what inherently guides them, their practices, their decisions, and their customers (much in the same way that the reputation Individuals build through consistent quality behavior is what guides their free market of associations, and the reputation that ideas build through consistent quality logic guides their free market of thoughts among society). Meanwhile, in a free market, businesses, and the ideas that form them, naturally compete with, and also cooperate with, each other, working diligently to keep standards as high as possible for the sake of their customer-bases, who are also a very active member of the equation and the transaction, rather than mere ‘consumers.” All of these factors, in turn, regulate the availability and prices of said services. This dynamic is very much unlike the monopoly that guides our State-based “services,” as I noted previously, and most especially among the police forces we see running amok all over the country, today, with absolutely no legitimate oversight, nor a modicum of concern about real repercussions for their many, many crimes against humanity. They, long ago, realized that their forces are shielded from justice in the interest of artificially upholding the “Infallible, Faith-Based State as Supreme Being” model, and so, they ALMOST ALWAYS keep their contracts with their respective communities, while their individual officers are ALMOST ALWAYS PAID, and usually PAID WELL, too, regardless of how shoddy, unproductive, or counterproductive the services they perform are. In reality, even when a few particular costumed-criminals, operating under color of law, are made to occasionally financially pay for their misdeeds (typically only the most egregious and blatant ones they commit, of course), they are still almost completely shielded from any personal penalty, as the “town” or “city” they work is the entity that actually pays out the lawsuits: AKA the TAXPAYER! Meanwhile, in an Anarchist society, hired defenses wouldn’t be concerned with the business of becoming revenue collectors for a State motivated to continually make law after law to keep money and control flooding into their pockets, as their would be no illegitimate State-based Authority – only contracts among consensual individuals. This easily and naturally eliminates a glaring conflict of interest in our justice “cystem” that has taken place for far, far too long, unabated!
And, before you begin to object, please be mindful to remain consistent in your logic, for “if one rejects laissez faire (free market) on account of man’s fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.” – Ludwig von Mises
In other words, most of the typical arguments against these things I postulate here will actually be inadvertent arguments AGAINST THE STATE, as well! You might even expose some doublethink Statist reasoning that you were unaware of.
Rayn: Now, let me be clear, Katherine, that in *most* cases of crime, particularly isolated cases, self-defense can only take place in a situation where a criminal is directly engaged in the act of Aggression against an Individual, because during that anxious and uncertain time, the Individual being actively victimized is under absolutely no obligation to guess how far a criminal will take their behavior, since the criminal’s already-revealed acts in the situation indicate their inability to be trusted with life, nor property. I do not refer to any situation where an Individual has already committed a crime, and has long-left the scene of it.
These latter sorts of situations, where a criminal has gotten away would usually necessitate some less direct responses to their activity. Now, the Anarchist examples would be too numerous to name, as I have many ideas on the topic, myself, and have also even read a few from other Anarchists here and there, but here’s just a few that come to mind which you might appreciate, since they are in line with much of the “services” the State currently provides, albeit in a totally corrupt monopolistic setting. Perhaps you can even contribute a few ideas to make them better, if you’re up for the challenge:
(1) publicly witnessing, in as high a number as possible, against criminal acts against one’s self, or those acts directly-seen, or recorded, as a way of seeking the path to justice, and also, to dutifully warn fellow members of society about predatory Individuals, in order to prevent further crimes against the innocent and peaceful. The free market would positively respond to such witnessing, as many independent businesses, non-profits, volunteers, friends, families and neighbors, alike, would begin to take and keep publicly-available records of well-established or well-proven offenders, along with how such determinations were made, based upon the reputation for honesty of individuals reporting the crimes, and all evidence provided about the situation. These service providers, and Individuals, would soon begin to also keep public records of those individuals bearing false witness against others, as well, as soon as they are discovered, to increase their level of accuracy, and to maintain their reputations for upholding the Truthful nature of justice. Those businesses and individuals providing consistent quality service in this arena would gain a good reputation for doing so, and other unrelated businesses and individuals would quickly realize that they could significantly improve their reputation by honoring such records, in either their refusal to deal with well-established criminals, alerting of victims to such criminals in their midst, or even, their attempts to help victims claim or reclaim restitution for crimes committed against them, when criminals attempt to purchase their services. If the well-established crimes of an Individual are especially violent and purposeful in nature, businesses and individuals could also choose to demand that such individuals immediately vacate their presence or property, warning them that they will be met with force if their request isn’t met, in recognition of the fact that a violent criminal who has made no efforts to take responsibility for or make reparations their wrongdoing is under no obligation to be trusted by the innocent and the peaceful. In the case of well-established serial murders, rapists, or severely violent beings, all able-bodied and willing members of the community should be ready and prepared to simply kill them on sight, or risk becoming themselves, their loved ones, their friends, and/or their neighbors becoming their next victims.
Checks and balances would be a very active, overlapping part of every single step of this entire justice process, much like all things in a free market. And, all throughout history, criminality has always been a matter of public record, as it impacts entire communities, so this sort of process would take place with little conceptual changes from the current system, under the State. However, there would be a much more directly-involved nature to it all. Justice is a vital matter of full public interest that is too dangerous to outsource to unaccountable, monopolistic entities like government. Rest assured that many of the efforts I describe here are already in place within the framework of the State, in many respects, and yet the monopoly it has on such services has led to massive corruption within its courts, and the “justice system” it claims to uphold, yet fails miserably to do so.
(2) especially in the case of property loss or damage, but not necessarily limited to such crimes, personally-engaging in efforts at reparation or recuperation, or doing so with friend, family, or neighbors, or even, hiring a reputable business to do so. Each of these could keep a good reputation upon adequately delivering said services, and could maintain even better reputations for choosing to coordinate their efforts with the public record-keeping services mentioned above, for the sake of checks-and-balances.
(3) hiring reputable investigators to discover the guilty parties behind crimes with no witnesses but the evidence on the scene. Depending on the crime, different investigators would come into play, be it detectives, profilers, forensic analyzers, etc. These investigators could increase their their reputations, by filing their findings with public record-keeping services, while also offering public records of finished cases, themselves.
If you’ll notice the reoccurring theme: REPUTATION, itself, including the SERVICES, QUALITY, SKILL and HONEST-DEALINGS that underlie it, would reclaim their rightful places as the highest forms of SOCIAL CURRENCY! “Money” would stop doing so much of the talking, and more meaningful, more enduring forms of value would return to where they have always belonged! And, as I’ve gone over things ideas in my head for many years, now, I quickly began to realize that THIS particular factor is probably ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS why Individuals and their businesses fear Anarchy, right along with the State. Not too many Individuals are truly ready to live by the merits of their daily words, actions and deeds, and so, would rather become anonymous “tax-payers” and human batteries for a death-system of tyranny and corruption, rather than live up to their full potential as a real-life, flesh-and-blood, human beings, operating with full jurisdiction, and hence, full responsibility, over themselves!
Katherine C.: Rayn, you realize that a lot of what you’re describing is indeed a social contract. Some of the options you described require some form of a “government office” (justice department, public records, etc.). What is also reminds me of, are the ancient civilizations that weren’t necessarily as big as the U.S. or the Roman Empire or anything, but they had a simpler form of government. Cuz you see, Rayn, even in the simplest forms, we need an agreement between a peoples that we will co-exist in peace, as you yourself described. However, it is foolish and naive to think that everyone will fall in line with the ideology. No, I wouldn’t kill anyone unless I’m defending myself or someone else, and I know you’d never do that either unless you were in the same situation. However, again, it is naive to think that there aren’t people out there who would kill and rape, etc. it’s the world we live in, and even before governments existed, there have always been those people. The solution you mentioned of self defense is laughable, as not everyone is equipped to do that, and in a civilized society, they shouldn’t be forced to take up arms. As for the hiring of security, the problem then becomes, what constitutes fair punishment. Do we kill because some stole some food? Obviously you and I don’t believe that, but then who sets the rules? Your particular idea of anarchy requires people to follow an ideology–to be peaceful. That doesn’t seem like anarchy to me, but simply a different form of politics. And the point I was making earlier, who decides what’s unacceptable in your ideal society? How would these ideas be enforced? You have to understand that not everyone is like you and there will always be people that will take advantage of things, in different degrees of course, but they will. What you’re describing is impossible to accomplish without having systems in place. And someone, or a group, must be responsible for these systems. They will wield some sort of power. And as humans, you know the old, but very true saying, power corrupts. It’s built into our DNA to be greedy, it’s a defense mechanism. We do this as children without ever being even taught because it’s our survival.
Rayn: Nope. It’s not even close to the “social contract,” Katherine, because I’m referring to FULLY VOLUNTARY, and FULLY CONTRACTUAL relations, here, not an invisible piece of paper that magically binds all of the people born in particular geographic location, bound by invisible borders, to a corrupt nation of morally-bankrupt sociopathic criminals! Also, I did not mention a “justice department,” whatsoever. By that logic, then my website, AcidRayn.com is a “justice department” for all of the various times I wrote up complete breakdowns of criminal activity I was victim to, include harassment by police! Examples:
Questioned, Searched & Frisked by Wood-Ridge Cop, Then Ordered to Leave Town With Threat of Arrest Upon Return:
Contest Scam Perpetrated By Colorado-Based “A Mile Higher Marijuana” Company:
(it took a my efforts caused this particular lying criminal to take down his Facebook page, completely, never to scam again under that business name)
I also never said there wouldn’t be any criminal activity in the absence of government, and even gave Voluntaryist examples of how to deal with criminal activity to prove it. I simply noted that UNDER GOVERNMENT, the criminals are given a legal pass to commit their crimes, with a full monopoly on “justice,” which is completely counterproductive! As Gustave de Molinari stated, “Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will.” You’re the one who seems to NAIVELY indicate that there’s no crime taking place under the State, and that you’re not propping THE WORST OF IT up into office, every time you VOTE!
Self-defense isn’t laughable. It’s a natural right. Under the State, police only typically respond AFTER a crime is being committed, while severely limiting our ability to defend ourselves, as though they are actually preventing crime! Politics is that which is imposed upon populaces by RULERS. I described no such situation. Also, I didn’t describe an “ideal society.” Again, who’s the naive one, here? I only suggested my IDEAS for solutions to criminal activity in the absence of propping up a CRIMINAL STATE AUTHORITY to criminalize us all!
You claim that I “have to understand that not everyone is like you and there will always be people that will take advantage of things, in different degrees of course, but they will. ,” but THAT is an ARGUMENT AGAINST THE STATE, which I warned you about falling into the trap of, in advance. Besides, Thomas Paine, the Father of the American Revolution, aptly witnesses against the falsehood of your claims, which I already quoted to you during our last debate on this topic:
In “The Rights of Man,” he wrote the following:
“For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American War, and to a longer period in several of the American States, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defence to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet during this interval order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.”
Does that sound like it agrees with your regurgitated, revisionist explanation about that nature of humanity?
Any so-called “systems” in place to battle against corruption must be wide-spread, decentralized, and must be based upon full consent. Anarchy is our natural state of being before the State criminal force comes meddling into our lives. How would the solution to POWER CORRUPTION be to place ALL the POWER society has into the hands of a TINY MINORITY of MORALLY-BANKRUPT CRIMINALS? Again, who’s naive, here?
And, with all of this in mind, also realize that reality does not tend to agree with your highly cynical notion that humanity needs to be ruled over by morally-bankrupt criminal scum. And, the Statists currently denying my natural right to live, to own myself, and to peacefully co-exist are simply those who wish to violate them, by way of robbery, slavery and/or murder – either directly, or through violent, coercive proxy (church, state, etc). This is typically done while espousing the usual brand of illogical superstition, replete with “original sin/presumed guilt/pre-crime/chaos” myth about the inherent “evil/cruelty/disorder” of humanity. Of course, I reject such cult-like nonsense, as it is absolutely illegitimate. Not only have I personally met more kind and caring souls than I can count, I also recognize every human being as a UNIQUE, SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL – to be judged ONLY by the merits of their OWN character! As far as I’m concerned, assigning humanity with labels fit for criminals is merely an excuse for the corrupt and polluted souls among us to collectively oppress and punish us all for crimes we haven’t even committed, in an effort to catch a boogie man that lives no further than the nearest MIRROR! Besides, biology, itself, does NOT support the “freedom is slavery” double-think mentality of such control-freaks, no matter how many clever excuses they come up with in order to justify their lust to harm and enslave others:
Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (Aug. 2009):
Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social Animals, Not Predators (Feb. 2006):
The Compassionate Species (July 2012):
Young Children Are Intrinsically Motivated to See Others Helped (August 2011):
We’re In This Together: A Pathbreaking Investigation into the Evolution of Cooperative Behavior (Nov. 2012):
Humans Naturally Cooperative, Altruistic, Social (Sept. 2011):
A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution (Jan. 2011):
Instinctively, People Are Generous (Sept. 2012):
(archived copy of above link located here: http://web.archive.org/web/20121004113714/http://news.discovery.com/human/human-instinct-generous-120919.html)
Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation (July 2002):
(Brain intrinsically rewards reciprocal altruism over self-interest)
(*all it takes is free-will initiation of altruism by only one party in most cases!)
Thinking About Giving, Not Receiving, Motivates People to Help Others (Aug. 2012):
As I’ve said before, the idea that human beings are inherently weak cattle and incapable of running their own lives without the use of coercion is just a MYTH propagated by rotten-souled tyrants who desire to manufacture public consent to their population control schemes. And, the more such stories are repeated as though fact, the more individuals believe it, and act accordingly, denying their own humanity under the notion that others are doing the same – the blind leading the blind, in a most pathetic display of conformism.