If Sartwell’s challenge/argument had compelling intellectual rigor, then we’d all be anarchists by now.

If that nonsense (typical for Brain Holz) was true, then everyone would be libertarians by now….

The object is to convey the impression there are no definitions so they can insert their ‘definition.’

These issues were settled years ago. Read a book, will you?

Dream on.

Here’s a counter-challenge I bet Sartwell’s book doesn’t address:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

If Sartwell’s challenge/argument had compelling intellectual rigor, then we’d all be anarchists by now. He’s clearly just wishing for a sticker on the store packaging of this universe that guarantees that all ethical judgments inside the box involving political theory have to be simple ones. Nobody can certify for us that for the tool-using speech-capable pair-bonded omnivorous bipedal primates on this planet, it just so happens that 100% absolute abstinence from force-initiation is always the optimal strategy for minimizing the net incidence of aggression in the societies such primates form. Life is just not that simple, no matter how good it feels to believe otherwise.

..SOMEWHAT PRECISELY, how would any self-described ‘anarchists’ resolve ‘disputes,’ etc. ad goddamned nauseam?..

...i have concluded that ‘today’—aside from whether ‘government’ is good, bad, ugly, etc..—that government is INEVITABLE..

...whether it’s the mcsame’s, obama’s mamas, boob ‘whipped cream’ barfers, or maybe the hell’s angels, etc. ad goddamned nauseam who might quickly fill any void..’government’ is inevitable TODAY on this still-primitive planet..

..but this shouldn’t stop decent folks from moving towards ‘angelic an (without) archy’ (rule)...as there is a lifetime of hideous, inexplicable ‘government’ to eliminate..abundant, easy pickings for the obvious betterment of mankind..

..that’s my ooga booga and i’m sticking to it..for now anyway!.. ;o)

Doesn’t deal with Sartwell’s premise. Smells like “America, love it or leave it”. Ergo, you’re a hypocrite for believing in no government and not having a place to go.

“He might offer us some evidence that his opinion is correct in some precise, absolute sense, yet I didn’t hear one.”

Isn’t that the point of the book? Draft copies have been posted on his blog in the past if uber critics just think its a cheap publicity stunt.

“The argument for the state’s use of force initiation to minimize aggression is the same as for a doctor’s use of needles to minimize pain.”

Perhaps if a parent directs a child to yield to it. Otherwise the patient is presumably undergoing voluntary treatment. As far as the link after that comment is concerned, Sartwell is not making a plea for political expediency or reality based on the logical consequences of his assertion. He can be happily ‘pure’ in this regard. He’s not saying ZAP is a good way to form a political party. Nothing of the sort. He’s asserting that the moral justification for the state is inherently wrong. It’s not about where we want to go or need to be according Sartwell’s assertion.

The last bit also applies to holistic politics guy without a political home. The consequentialist arguments against anarchy are based on impracticality in the political arena and some presumed aspects of human nature and previous human historical conditions, not the moral proposition that the state has no moral basis as apologists like Locke, Rawls and others conclude. Thus while there may be some resonance as to the affect that advocating anarchy in a political environment may be impractical, fall on deaf ears etc., Sartwell is not shilling for a faction in any political party, he’s coming from a pure philosophical basis. That’s hard for most politicos to reconcile in their earnest quest for change.

Odd that no one picked up on the irony that he’s publishing through a State University Press though . . .

but the fact of the matter is, we need forced order, we need, believe it or not, people to be forced to help each other

Sounds like an advocate of socialism if I ever heard one.

If it was human nature to respect the rights of others and to coexist peacefully

So when you go visit your neighbors and friends you try to start fights with them and violate their rights?

Also, the war issue, and the fact that with anarchy, weakness is expressed and we would be defenseless (not literally) to another country taking us over.

May 31st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers

WOW this is an insight into disinter sick mind. This is how Disinter see life. No wonder he has yet to post a positive or at least constructive post. All he knows to do is tear down

As a libertarian, I’m for small government where ever possible, but don’t want to abolish it completely. Of course for the biggest things that are necessary, they should be done at the lowest level possible. For instance, police, instruments that should only be used to defend the life and liberty of citizens, nothing more. (Disclaimer: Most of the people I’ve talked with who consider themselves anarchist, are similar to what you would find in the extreme radical wing of the LP, so sorry if I have a skewed view of anarchism.) I often hear that a truly free market will replace many functions of the state in the absence of the state, such as police and fire protection and roads, but that seems to bring us back to a defacto state, though a very fractured one with the truest consent of the governed. If you don’t pay your “taxes” to the police company, they won’t protect you, or if you don’t pay you “taxes” to the road company, you can’t use the roads. This “free market tribalism” might even be able to protect you from the inevitable bands of thugs that I spoke of earlier, but at the end of the day, you’re back to having government.

Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html

Presumably someone is in jail because they have committed a CRIME

Like a victim-less crime?

Locke ignores history. No state anywhere was formed by the people’s voluntary consent.