(On this example, anyway)

@ghost
"However, at no point did I make the choice to give up my sovereignty."

What sovereignity? What did you give up, and/or what is taken from you by the goverment? I don´t get what you are complaining about....

"n which case it is not a contract."

That´s what i have said, its an Idea...

"Every single one has no moral mandate to infringe on its citizen’s rights to liberty and property except in the case of criminals"

In my country we elect our politicians, we have garantueed equality, freedom, health care and education. No one wants the state to fail but a small group of neonazis and some left extremists. I think the state has an oustanding morale mandate! Don´t know where you are from, but i understand you if you´re from iran or north korea.

"If I rob you, I have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting caught"
That´s absolutly nonsense again...you are pulling this right out of your ass. By the way if you try to rob me i am not waiting for police i beat you up myself...

and pleace don´t come up again with the social contract, nobody cares about it since the beginning of the 19th century..

Jamie, 2 things:

Firstly, about the Somalia.

I am not going to hold Somalia up as an example of how anarchy brings utopia. This is obviously farcical. My point was however to point out that the problems often cited regarding Somalia exist in MOST sub-Saharan African countries.
It is equally farcical to suggest that if Britain did away with the main structure of the State but retained all free associations and organizations that it would end up anything like Somalia.
Finally, statistics consistently and irrefutably show that with the fall of Barre, living standards for the bottom 90% of Somalians have risen despite all of the violence and invasion by the US and Ethiopia. Totalitarian rule is one example where even anarchy in the pejorative sense (ie. total chaos) is preferable to the State.

Obviously this case is much harder to make for a 'Western' 'Liberal' 'Democracy'.

------

"Surely the only way to prevent the resumption of coercive power would require the people to be sufficiently organised to resist any individual or group attempting to exert such power. In order for the people to so organise themselves, they would need an agreed system for collective decision-making. I would argue that the people, organising themselves in this system, would constitute a form of state. No?"

Assuming that the mandate was consistently owned by the collective? No, I don't think that is a State in the form we are discussing here. (And if it is, I think we can agree it a fundamentally different type of state than a despotism, nation-state, a feudal state, and especially a modern State). You are correct of course in saying that this is to prevent a resumption of coercive power.

Fortunately, such structure already exist in the form of grassroots political communities, neighbourhoods, etc. Again, given relative prosperity and equality, and given a balance of power, coercive States do not form.

It took a very specific set of circumstances in human history for man to fall under the dominion of man, and given that those circumstances are avoided (power through moral influence, accumulation of disparate weaponry, collective inability for sustainability etc.) I see no reason why such a state cannot by maintained by a far more advanced society (or set of societies).

@ Miro

Please try to avoid sounding so arrogantly condescending unless you are willing to put forth good arguments as to why Ghost is smoking a big one.

The sovereignty we refer to is the ability to live our lives without being compelled to do or not things under the threat of force which we had no role in making. Why can't I walk over the bridge to the US near my house unaccosted? Once there, why can't I light up a nice joint and have a nice afternoon gambling with my buddies?

What gives 'the authorities' the right to throw me in jail for such acts? I didn't agree to these laws. I didn't agree to put these people in power. I'm not saying that I should full reign to do whatever I want, but WHO DECIDED that a bunch of old white dudes could decide for me hoe to live my life?

Finally, who cares about the social contract?

Quoting you: "In my country we elect our politicians" <- An example of the social contract in action. It's still relevant.



----

Finally, Iceland is a poor example for Anarchism, due to the reason Jamie cited.
For a better example of of Anarcho-Syndicalism (ALong with tons of crazy awesome experimentation), look to the Spanish;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution

@FS
"The sovereignty we refer to is the ability to live our lives without being compelled to do or not things under the threat of force which we had no role in making." You have inherited the decisions of others, in the same way that you have a role in making decisions that will affect those who follow you.

"Why can't I walk over the bridge to the US near my house unaccosted?" I don't know, tell me.

"Once there, why can't I light up a nice joint and have a nice afternoon gambling with my buddies?" Because of the decisons of previous voters.

"What gives 'the authorities' the right to throw me in jail for such acts?" Your fellow citizens.

"I didn't agree to these laws." No, other members of your society did. It is not all about you.

"I didn't agree to put these people in power.

"I'm not saying that I should full reign to do whatever I want, but WHO DECIDED that a bunch of old white dudes could decide for me hoe to live my life?" Your fellow citizens. Voters.

Don't like it. Vote, campaign, run.

@ diplomat: "@FS"Why can't I walk over the bridge to the US near my house unaccosted?" I don't know, tell me."

Presumably from the phrase "walk over the bridge TO THE US" he implies that he does not live in the USA. There is probably a border checkpoint at the bridge and he can't cross without their permission, etc.

I can never vote for an American leader (Canadian), and I am too young to vote in most jurisdictions, yet I can be thrown in jail rest along with the rest of them. Obviously citizens of years past had a role in deciding the laws that I live my life by, but you have to be delusional to accept that the present form of the authoritative State was by democratic decree. A majority of Americans do not support a bigger budget for the Pentagon, and yet every years billions and billions more are poured into it.

I would still disagree with your apparent belief that people I don't know half a world away should have a role in legislating my behaviour, but even if I did agree, Democracy is broken in America, it is broken in Canada, and it isn't much better elsewhere.

The mandate of the masses holds some sway, but the structure of the State is still an unjust system that has no prime justification for it's existence except for a heritage of people with weapons and power informing other people what to do.

"Presumably from the phrase "walk over the bridge TO THE US" he implies that he does not live in the USA. There is probably a border checkpoint at the bridge and he can't cross without their permission, etc."

Precisely. The American notion of exceptionalism and human propensity for putting up walls is creating an uncomfortable situation in North America, even for Canadians. I'm a bit bitter because my friend's car got ripped apart by the border guards on our way into the US. Apparently a group of teenagers look suspicious enough alone to search for drugs. The worst part is, barely any reason was given (we were too *slow* to answer questions!?), no consent was required for the search, and no help or compensation was given for the damage to the vehicle.

My question is, where is this right ultimately derive from? Sure, some voters in the past had a role in putting an American government into power that then decided to virtually militarize it's borders. Please tell me how this is in anyway more defensible for a 'free' society than checkpoints in China for example.

To be clear, I live a very good life. Government power is more all-encompessing but less opressive than most in human history, sure. But ought we continue to strive for betterment?

I don't think the fact that the status quo is better than historical existences is any justification for retaining the status quo in it's current state.

Sadly, I have no anarchist party to vote for, and the protest parties are just as Statist as the big dogs. :/

@ FS: "and no help or compensation was given for the damage to the vehicle"

Did they do much damage? I would have thought that you may be able to take legal action to recover the cost of the damage. If your friend has had the damage repaired, tell him to get a reciept from the garage, and keep it, and to speak to a lawyer.

In the UK if the Police damage your property in the course of an investigation, they have to compensate you (presuming you are not found guilty - and even then in some circumstances).

FS: America isn't a democracy... It's a representative republic.

That being said, I don't support either one as a basis of government. It terrifies me that a meth-addled drug addict has as much say in controlling the legitimate use of force as I do.

@Sword
"An example of the social contract in action. It's still relevant."
No, voting is about democracy.

"Once there, why can't I light up a nice joint and have a nice afternoon gambling with my buddies?"
I guess you are too young...so laws are protecting the youth i guess.

"Please try to avoid sounding so arrogantly"
The whole thread wasn´t made up to discuss the role of state, it´s only about bashing it.

"The whole thread wasn´t made up to discuss the role of state, it´s only about bashing it. "

I'm confused... Is that a problem?

@rumley
"America isn't a democracy... It's a representative republic"
Oh rumley... :-)

That´s because i sound arrogantly to him. He is not interrested in my opinion.

Well I'm not either. Go away.

"Did they do much damage? I would have thought that you may be able to take legal action to recover the cost of the damage. If your friend has had the damage repaired, tell him to get a reciept from the garage, and keep it, and to speak to a lawyer."

Well, he tried to press charges, but unfortunately since it was the Americans rather than the Canadians who conducted the search, it seems the police must consent to the charges or some such nonsense... which obviously they don't. Same thing with getting reimbursement. Bureaucratic silliness prevents anything from happening. The damage to the seats and the trunk wasn't very much; maybe $100 or so... but we had to put it back together. Honeslty, it was the principle that was the issue. Not the value of the damage.

In any case, to use legal recourse is expensive, and the law is usually (unsurprisingly) on the side of the police.


"I guess you are too young...so laws are protecting the youth i guess."

Even if I was fifty, it would still be illegal to have a game of poker in a house in New York State followed by a quick pass around of a joint. In fact, it could result in significant jailtime. And yo, if the prohibition on pot is meant to protect me from it, it sure ain't working.

"The whole thread wasn´t made up to discuss the role of state, it´s only about bashing it. "

I have been discussing the role of the state. Admittedly, this discussion has been a critical one. Unfortunately, you have offered nothing to it. :)

Disagreeing with your opinion and lambasting your lack of content or grace does not equal a lack of respect.... well I guess it does. :P Sorry babe.

OK then Miro, explain your opinion then. Why do I ought to respect the decisions of people who I had no role in putting into power, who I have no chance of removing from power, who have consistently demonstrated a lack of interest in my well-being, whose statements are undermined by thier actions, whose decisions are undemocratic, and whose direct impact on my life has been generally negative?

Oh my god a disapointed juvenile is so mad about not beeing allowed to take drugs, my heart crys i really never heard of such a story :´-(
Yes now i understand you and i can feel the pain and the anger about the state! This horrible state the gives your mother medical treatment when giving birth to you. It educates so much juvenile like you and teaches them to read and write, I HATE YOU BAD BAD STATE! And then on a border to a foreign country, they stoped the car of Smokey Mac Pot with you in it and searched it for drugs, how dare you borderpolice :-(

Grow up kiddie :-)

^considering this guy would rather post inane nonsense like this instead of answering such a simple question as to what his idea of a "right" is, I'd say it's not worth your time

What most people don't seem to realize is that anarchy isn't just about the absence of government, it's about the absence of organized control of freedom. There are far greater threats to our freedom than government and anybody who seriously thinks that a weakening of government power in our current situation would really bring about greater personal freedom really needs to think again. The power vacuum will always be filled and the average person just isn't ready, willing or informed enough to take on this responsibility. Would you really rather be ruled by Monsanto than an institution that you at least have some control over?

@SunZi + 1

@Eden

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement. That is to say, rights are normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. The concept of rights is often fundamental to civilized societies, and it is of vital importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology"

Well my distinguished Mr. Miro...

If this is a debate about comparative maturity I'd say that you are consistently exhibiting less of it than this "disapointed juvenile".

I am thankful for the medical treatment my Mother recieved during my birth, but I do not consider this a direct result of State intervention.

I am not however, thankful to the State for my education, which it did not provide for. In any case, public education is generally a mixture of barely adequate basics and proto-subservience to the State training. Where else, says the patriarch, will the kiddies learn to 'respect ma authoritaay'?

More importantly though, where does it get the God damn right? This is question at hand, not my level of juvenility for having engaged in chemical's highs along with the majority of the North American populace.

You are probably correct President Eden, but sometimes I can't help myself. :P

Plus my job is super boring.

You just have to look for a definition Eden, is this so hard to do...

late to party but my 2 cents (without reading anything before):

We as humans NEED the state. because a Hobbsian existence would not serve us well. BUT we can always improve how that state functions.


what I mean is that human beings are inherently capable of causing harm to each other either individually or as groups. In order to prevent an existence which would inevitably result in tyrannical injustice, we need some form of a human-construct for collective decision making to alleviate those inevitable injustices that would arise outside of 'rules'.

SunZi, why do you think Monsanto and it's ilk exercise such influence in our society? It isn't because they are awesome, and it isn't because of market forces.

I accept that the State isn't all bad, and other forms of coercive power are much worse, but that doesn't make it good. You, I imagine, would name it a 'necessary evil' yes? My claim is that it is unecessary.

Anarcho-Syndicalism (which I suppose I am arguing for here) doesn't create a vacuum of organization. Human organisation does not need and it does not necessitate coercive and centralized power. I have faith in the average human that they are able to act in thier own interest when the question is put clearly enough. The problem of course is in the obfusication of ideas, caused by our 'free' media and our 'free' education.