Topic: News: Bulgaria's Boevski Abused by Prisoners in Brazilian Jail - Lawyer

[Matt Erdman]

All money must be earned through voluntary exchange or is recognized as theft-slavery by the law...

What is the law and who enforces it? (Since this thread is completely de-railed and the site is at risk, I'll just go with it.  ) My brother claims himself to be a "libertarian-socialist" ala Noam Chomsky. The end goal being no government, national defense, police force, or capitalists (definition unknown). No matter how you define "immoral" only a complete moron would claim that no one is immoral. So how would an anarchist define "law" and how is it enforced?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

As I already explained, the law is the non-aggression principle. It is maintained through private aggression-coercion fraud insurance integrated with private arbitration-security-defense. Such systems have existed quite successfully numerous times in history. In fact, they pre-date statist "legal" systems, which only emerged when the Kings realized they could profit from running the "courts." I disagree the thread is derailed. People just aren't used to anyone standing up for freedom, but thats the topic at hand. Boesvki doesn't deserve to be jailed. His actions were non-criminal. Those who searched him, stole his property, and imprisoned him are the ones who violated the law, the non-aggression principle.

For a *description*, not a plan, of how an anarcho-capitalist society would function, this book does the best overall job IMO:

Audio version:

The Market for Liberty | Introduction

Pdf version: http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

[Matt Erdman]

What about on a broad scale? Say we abolish our government and national defense and then China invades. What then?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Same answer. Private defense. China is way too smart for such an insane venture however. They realize military adventures are unprofitable, and the American people, including me, are very heavily armed. ;)

[Matt Erdman]

Same answer. Private defense. China is way too smart for such an insane venture however. They realize military adventures are unprofitable, and the American people, including me, are very heavily armed. ;)

Could be...

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I didn't want to confine private defense to a militia system, but such a system does indeed exist in America and has pretty much always existed. And, it is far more effective than government armies, as evidenced by Afghanistan kicking the USSR's butt and continuing to kick the US government's butt. If you study honest history of the American revolution, the same facts become plain. It was the militias and the anarchistic Americans that fought off the British, not George Washington with his European style, insane tactics of taking on a superior force in open fields in European fashion of taking turns firing at each other from standing positions.

[Andy Dick]

And, it is far more effective than government armies, as evidenced by Afghanistan kicking the USSR's butt and continuing to kick the US government's butt.

I would have to disagree, I would say Afgan's success is due to the fact governments hands are tied by "humanitarian" war laws while the Afgan's are not.  The Afgans use our war laws as a way tieing our hands.  Proganda of us kiling civilians while the civilians are running around with weapons to get the UN to hate on us so we tie our hands in our efforts.  Hiding in civilian towns and cities etc.

Warfare from the revolution and now has drastically changed.  The problem in the revolution is the British generals did not adapt thier style of battle to a more effective means.  If the Britians attacked in the same manner as the Americans instead of marching in a regiment in lines open to be slaughtered the battle would be different.  A great military general will adapt to eliminate the weakness in thier battle plan and exploit the weakness in the enemy.  Look at Syria their "private defense" or rebellion was getting slaughtered until the UN stepped in.

If we were not so scared of the backlash of killing some civilians to end a war the war would be over long ago.  Look at dropping the atomic bombs, civilian casulaties, now it was a fortunate turn of events that the Japanese at the last minute surrendered because we only had 1 bomb left but now we have a great number more "bombs" (we have other methods of destruction, viruses and gasses we can use) to end a war quickly.

The other problem I see is once you go to a private defense, you limit the money free to fund the highly scientific and powerful weapons.  There will not be a large defense force but small militias that will not unite unless there is a substantial threat.  With as quickly as a battle can be won now, that time will be too late.  Also, no one defense force will be strong unless under 1 banner and usually this banner will erode the anarco-capitalist way of thinking since rights will have to be given up in order to function as a cohesive unit.  OR one militia will grow dominance and use force to unite others under its banner and ways of thinking.  This is how these dictators in the Middle East keep coming to power.  This is my fear with Islamic factions rise to military dominance becuase they have no qualms about massacreing those that do not agree with them.

I would say that how our republic was created and intented (before it was severly perverted by politicians through US history) works, as tyrannical as you say it is.  Do I think we need to move more towards and anarcho-capitalist way of doing things but I would say going completely to that extreme would not be wise or work.

My family is also being one how in John's example am able to recieve many benefits from the government.  But I refuse to do so, I do have some (badger care) because it is a necessity but to take everything I can just to stick it to the governments makes me part of the problem not the solution.  I refuse to be someone touting that the system is broken all the while perverting and taking advantage of it at the same time. 

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

The Afghans just wan't us out of their lands. The killing of civilians is inherent in the nature of occupations and thus an inherent advantage to the anarchistic way of fighting and an advantage to the party on defense. It increases the support of the people for the resistance. You can say it ties the US's hands- that's the point. Just killing more Afghans isn't going to get them to embrace our tyrannical system. It merely adds more people that want to fight off the invaders and get revenge. The British could never have defeated the Americans simply by trying to take on anarchistic tactics. They were outnumbered all around and did not have effective support from the populace. They were dependent on military control over specific locations- the ports particularly. The people knew who the enemy was, whether they wore uniforms or not. There was no blending in to the civilians after a hit and run skirmish for the British. Besides, they had no way of conquering America. There was no central government to simply take over. Even if Washington had surrendered, this would not have stopped the individual Americans and militias from continuing the fight. In fact, it would have freed them to fight far more effectively as Washington was an absolutely horrible general, wasted massive resources, alienated many of his best fighters, and got a lot of people killed at great expense and strategic loss. The same is true in Afghanistan. That government is subservient to America, but the Afghan people don't give a damn. There is no *effective* central government to simply conquer that will pacify the country. Anarchistic methods do not require large funding like government armies either, don't build up debt or require massive supply chains. Assassination and other anarchistic tactics like burning the homes of the invaders, IED's, etc., in the long run, cannot be matched in efficiency or effectiveness by government. Government can do nothing better than freedom. It is an unnecessary evil. You cannot achieve peace and prosperity by legalizing crime. The only way to achieve peace, freedom and prosperity is through the always just and efficient free market. Competition and free entry ensure responsibility to the consumer. If a private defense organization alienated their customers, they would lose them to the competition, would then have less capital for the tools of the trade and-or would have to raise their prices which would accelerate the loss of customers. If one got out of line, the others would naturally conclude it is an outlaw as well and combine forces to end the threat to their profits. This can be done through the tremendous free market tools of ostracism and the press, including private reviewing companies akin to a consumer reports or Angie's List. It takes vision to imagine a social system one hasn't seen and in fact been brainwashed, by force, to believe is impossible. But, freedom can indeed work. It is in fact the only practical system long-term and the only moral system.

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!