hippie wrote: 
Heck, I love cream corn. I was speaking Manbirdian. It's sort of like explaining the theory of relativity to Manbird.

 hippie wrote: 


outlaw tofu and you get my vote

 hippie wrote: you're not my real dad.

 oldviolin wrote: 

Hell, If I run this country that shit will be outlawed and anyone caught making or distributing it will be shot on sight.

 hippie wrote: 
just vote no for cream corn...

 Umberdog wrote: 
Well, water rights were cited...

 miamizsun wrote: 
P.S. I just Googled 'DRO' and now I think I know what you've been smoking. *chuckles* Just joking.

 Umberdog wrote: 

 miamizsun wrote: 
Without a governing authority, who oversees and authenticates these contracts? You are left to work it out yourself... and without a 'higher authority' you are left with preserving your (non-existent) rights through your own means... which means violent action if the other party reneges on the contract. It seems to me, under anarchy, we're back to old Chicago methods. Which would, indeed, return us to the natural process of survival of the fittest... or, at least, survival of the best weapon-smiths.

In the above comment, I wrote "non-existent rights," because the only rights any creature has without social government are those that one can defend through one's own fortitude. Without social government, rights seem to go right out the window.

One other thing... "anarchic organization" is an oxymoron.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Well at least you didn't ask the plane/parachute question. First in an anarchic society, there is no absence of rules, regs or laws. That's your hallucination. There is however an absence of government violence. I think the current common laws and statutes follow the riparian or appropriation methods, I see no need to change these. However, there are large corporatist water companies that have, with government help of course, allowed to set up in an area and basically suck it dry. Boone Pickens has greased a bunch of politicians and acquired a massive amount of water rights and right of ways. When the group of people you've given authority to are for sale, expect them to be bought and sold.

In an anarchic organization these things are contractual and handled by DROs. In other words, if you buy property, in the contract are water rights, access rights, etc.

Regards

 hippie wrote: 
What a cool idea. Will it become a mushroom when you fold it just right?

 aflanigan wrote: 

A picture of my butt will go on the dollar bill, that why you can kiss it goodbye when you spend it.

 kurtster wrote: 

If you don't mind, honorable kurtster, allow me the liberty (if you'll pardon the pun) of using you as an example to look at the issue we're discussing.

Absolute or unrestricted personal freedom/liberty means anyone can do anything they please.  If we had no laws, no courts (judges, etc.), no authority of any kind (i.e. anarchy), that's what we would enjoy:  The freedom to do anything we wanted, including steal kurtster's stuff.  And that would be a shame, 'cause he's got some nice stuff (I'm particularly envious of the Tickle-Me-Elmo doll he's got).  So in order to keep this from happening, we can't really have unrestricted liberty, can we?

That's the paradox we run into:  In order for kurtster and everyone else to be free from having their stuff stolen, we need to limit people's freedom.  Our sense of morality, or of justice, informs us that it's not right or fair for something kurtster has worked and exerted effort to obtain to be stolen, to be "repossessed" by someone else.

The concept of constrained liberty is summed up in Oliver Wendell Holmes' quip that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".  John Stuart MIll was essentially driving at this same concept in his essay invoking the harm principle.

To express the limits we must place on liberty/freedom in order to protect people and society from the harmful actions of individuals, groups, corporations, etc., we create laws.  They can get rather complicated, but in terms of stealing, we might say "no one is allowed to steal under penalty of law".  We then develop definitions and clarifications, and appropriate penalties.  You can't be accused of stealing something no one possesses to begin with.  How do you define possession?  kurtster can show a paper signed by aflanigan stating that "on such and such a day I traded a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll to kurtster in exchange for a Frank Zappa record".

Now, do we want the same person writing, interpreting, and enforcing these laws?  The founding fathers of the US decided, no, that's not a good idea.  It's a dangerous concentration of power to have the same person or authority assuming all of these duties.  They had seen how monarchs had abused such a concentration of power to pass laws that favored them and enriched them, and to pass judgement on people who they did not like or felt threatened by in spite of what the laws might have been reasonably construed to say.  So they formed our government in a way in which the roles of writing/enacting, interpreting, and enforcing laws were divided among different branches of government, to ward against a dangerous concentration of power.  They also placed written limits (such as the Bill of rights) on the extent of authority/power that the government could exert over citizens.  That's what our Constitution essentially does, right?

—————————————————————-

Anyway, the hypothetical involving kurtster and his TME doll is an example where we can see that miamizsuns' anarchist notion of "interacting with others without threatening them", of using "incentives" to persuade people who have "absolute liberty", is utterly unworkable.  Let's imagine how kurtster can keep someone from stealing his Tickle-Me-Elmo doll without threatening them with violence or punishment or retaliation, but by offering them an incentive.

kurtster:  That's my Elmo doll, give it back, fellow anarchist!
fellow anarchist:  The heck with you, it's mine now.  I can do what I want, I'm an anarchist!
kurtster:  As am I.  Allow me to offer you an incentive to return my doll since I have no recourse to legal action, and since threatening you would disrupt the social order.
fa:  what are you offering me?
kurtster:  I have several things of value you may like.
fa:  The only thing I'm interested in is this Tickle-Me-Elmo doll.
kurtster:  Fine, if you will return my Elmo doll to me, I will give you what you want as an incentive in order to preserve the spirit of volunteerism that pervades our society.
(fa returns the Elmo doll to kurtster, who then gives it back)
fa:  Enjoy the rest of your day, fellow anarchist!
kurtster:  Uh, wait a minute, this didn't turn out the way I'd hoped . . .

 aflanigan wrote:
 
Nothing personal Hippie, but let's keep ol' George on the dollar. Don't wanna scare small children...

 hippie wrote: 

OK, sounds good to me.  Just one question regarding your qualifications:  Are you good looking enough to appear on the dollar bill, or should we stick with George Washington?

 Lazy8 wrote: 

Where, please, did I call you an anarchist, or even insinuate that you are one?  I explicitly pointed out that libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government.  What do you want from me, a signed affidavit?

Libertarians (and libertarians) don't own exclusive rights to the word "liberty".  If you think I'm using it incorrectly, fine, but don't assume that because my understanding of the word's various definitions doesn't align perfectly with the way you prefer to define it, I am therefor calling you an anarchist!

You're welcome to join in these hearty, robust debates.  The more the merrier!

 hippie wrote:  I'm in.

Who's the Sh** head brilliant poster that make's me side scroll ?

Who's the Sh** head that make's me side scroll ?

 hippie wrote: 
Rock on my brother...