Educated in a Tent

[Flame Of Liberty]

Probably a good thing, anarchy is kind of hard to guarentee I guess.

Just to make sure we understand each other - I am talking about anarchocapitalism. In no way I support antiglobalists and anarchists throwing stones at McDonalds.

Whatever. Government is the end result of humanity's natural desire to organize. Every single 'civilization' on this planet has had some sort of group organization structure. Whether its hunter/gatherer or hyper-urban, governing structures existed.

What a result, really. You and your friend organize and force me to join your organization. Still havent seen any sort of justification for that.

Whereas I am talking about voluntary cooperation. Is it that hard to see the difference?

Please point out an example of a society absent of organization.

See the other thread.

Nope. All I have is proof that when the lights go out, rioting and looting start. Again, we have an institution that is doing some things right and some things wrong. Reform is a great way to fix those that are wrong.

Wow. What a proof. Your impression, nothing else.

What replaces government?

Nothing. I believe I said that before, supported my view with arguments and examples. You reacted to neither, but you still repeat same things over and over eventhough I have adressed them. Looks to me you have little interest in progressing further, because you do not react to anything I say, rather than repeat your original stance over and over.

Whats the deal with describing the viewpoint that's not yours as 'uninformed or ignorant'? What are your qualifications to judge this debate? You'd better be a U of C PoliSci or Philosophy prof. at the least to be tossing that one out there, otherwise it's a pretty poor debating tactic and really stupid and rude. Of course, if you think of yourself as intellectually superior, then I guess I understand why you'd say that.

"I declare that anyone believing in your point of view to be an idiot". Might not be true, but apparently we're allowed to go ahead and judge, so I'll toss that out.

Nonsense. Nowhere I said that.

I linked plenty of scholarly articles proving my point that stateless societies did exist and you dont even bother to read them. You dont have to agree with them, but not bothering to do research and stating that stateless societies are utopia does make you either uninformed or ignorant. Disagree?

[Agamemnon]

Are you trying to have a discussion or are you just trying to rile me up.

Maybe I'm too ignorant to know the difference.

Stateless societies DID EXIST. Whether you acknowledge it or not.

Why dont you do some research? Here is something to get you started:

Iceland

David Friedman: Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case.

Private Creation and Enforcement of Law

Well, this doesn't exactly represent a society without overarching governmental controls.

Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small

Technically, people in Canada, by modern standards, are free; differences in status based on rank or sex are relatively small.

As for the Irish essay, it says,
My survey of the literature indicates that
(1) private ownership of property played a
crucial and essential role in the legal and social'
institutions of ancient Irish society; (2) that the
Irish law as developed by the professional
jurists-the brehons-outside the institutions
of the State, was able to evolve an extremely
sophisticated and flexible legal respqnse to
changing social and cultural conditions while
preserving principles of equity and the pro-
tection of property rights;
The very fact that the author makes references to legal development 'outside the institutions of the state' seems to imply that there are 'institutions of the state'. This article is solely about Irish legal traditions. It talks a lot about Druids being the keepers of the traditional laws, as they seem to comprise the judicial branch of early Irish governing institutions. Other components of early Irish government were clan-leaders, lawyers, merchants, etc. Just because people didn't pay taxes doesn't mean government didn't exist there.

Human organization for the purposes of survival, welfare, and productivity is natural. The fact that there are so many people now, massively centralized institutions are required to feed, clothe, and house us all.

Are these supposed to be your examples on how things would work your way? Completely outdated and irrelevant 'studies' on ancient cultures? How do you propose to adapt that lifestyle to the modern age? I think there's a serious reality gap here. This is like saying Plato's Republic was a good system and we should adopt it. Its not even close to practical for the times in which we live.

[Agamemnon]

Just to make sure we understand each other - I am talking about anarchocapitalism. In no way I support antiglobalists and anarchists throwing stones at McDonalds.

Right. You're talking about anarchy, in which capitalism is the predominant force. How is that not survival of the fittest?

What a result, really. You and your friend organize and force me to join your organization. Still havent seen any sort of justification for that.

The justification for it is called realism. Do what I want you to do, or I'll hurt you. You seem to think that this simple yet pervasive concept can be bypassed by... what? What maintains order in the absence of government? I keep asking, you keep dodging. Why don't you address that specifically? What's to stop me, in the absence of government, to 'force' you to join me and my gang? You're still be forced to join groups you don't want to (or die), I don't see how you're avoiding another person or people controlling you... and they will.

Wow. What a proof. Your impression, nothing else.

Well, since this is a philisophical debate, 'proof' is pretty subjective. Your 'proof' consists of two articles that I don't believe accurately represent your points.

Nothing. I believe I said that before, supported my view with arguments and examples. You reacted to neither, but you still repeat same things over and over eventhough I have adressed them. Looks to me you have little interest in progressing further, because you do not react to anything I say, rather than repeat your original stance over and over.

Must not have caught all those sweet examples. I keep asking because I'm not getting an answer on it. Again.

Nonsense. Nowhere I said that.

Uh huh. You said,

PS and opinions that "it wont work without the government" are either uninformed or ignorant.

It is my opinion that it won't work without the government, therefore I am either uninformed or ignorant, correct? I've been asking you to inform me, but you digress. I've done some 'research' on Libertarian stuff. Just go to the Libertarian Party Homepage and you can find some pretty easily debateable stuff.

Attack on Satanist shows absurdity of hate crime laws
[January 13] The decision by New York prosecutors to treat the beating of a Satanist as a hate crime provides more proof that the bizarre legal doctrine must be overturned, Libertarians say. "What in heaven's name are these prosecutors thinking?" asked Joseph Seehusen, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "When a law supposedly designed to protect religious minorities is being used to protect devil-worshippers, our criminal justice system has been turned upside down."

Not very tolerant for a freedom-for-all group, are they? Religious freedom for all.... except Satanists?

[tripin_billie]

I think the main concern about private education should be the motives of the school. The way I think of it is STS in the late '70's to early '90s period. the school was directed towards educating at the highest level possible. Now... its a gong show of rich spoiled brats. When my brothers and I attended, middleclass students were to norm, not the exeption (My parents were teachers in the public sector... lets say they didn't want me there). Now, STS is nothing more than a country club. This is the major problem and worry of private schools... If public schools damage students, private schools can damage just as much in different ways.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 16 2005, 08:01 PM
The very fact that the author makes references to legal development 'outside the institutions of the state' seems to imply that there are 'institutions of the state'. This article is solely about Irish legal traditions. It talks a lot about Druids being the keepers of the traditional laws, as they seem to comprise the judicial branch of early Irish governing institutions. Other components of early Irish government were clan-leaders, lawyers, merchants, etc. Just because people didn't pay taxes doesn't mean government didn't exist there.

Human organization for the purposes of survival, welfare, and productivity is natural. The fact that there are so many people now, massively centralized institutions are required to feed, clothe, and house us all.

Are these supposed to be your examples on how things would work your way? Completely outdated and irrelevant 'studies' on ancient cultures? How do you propose to adapt that lifestyle to the modern age? I think there's a serious reality gap here. This is like saying Plato's Republic was a good system and we should adopt it. Its not even close to practical for the times in which we live.

Of course there are institutions of the state. The article say that those societies did not need themin order to organize themselves.

Sometimes I have a feeling we speak different languages here. Was this my example on how things would work my way? NO, this was an example on how things DID work in the past, because you claimed that statless societies are an utopia.

Of course, the modern world is somewhere else. I never said we have to copy everything people in these ancient cultures did. That was not my point. I said that it did work and that stateless society is not an utopia. And those articles show that, plus there is a lot more info out there.

Gathering knowledge about societies and how they work is a process of discovery. Today we know more about natural law than people in ancient times did. Therefore we understand better as to what characteristics a free society should have in order to be one. I really dont see any difficulties here.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by tripin_billie@Jan 17 2005, 06:54 AM
I think the main concern about private education should be the motives of the school. The way I think of it is STS in the late '70's to early '90s period. the school was directed towards educating at the highest level possible. Now... its a gong show of rich spoiled brats. When my brothers and I attended, middleclass students were to norm, not the exeption (My parents were teachers in the public sector... lets say they didn't want me there). Now, STS is nothing more than a country club. This is the major problem and worry of private schools... If public schools damage students, private schools can damage just as much in different ways.

Yes, they may be a club for rich boys because the middle class cant afford to fund public schools through their taxes AND to pay for private education of their kids.

PS If you feel a private school does damage to your kid, you can choose another school that fits your need, no? Nobody is forcing you to attend and pay for a private school you dont like.

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Jan 15 2005, 06:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Jan 15 2005, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-InTheSlot@Jan 14 2005, 06:26 PM
Right, well even if you agree with the author that public schools cause "damage", I again have to ask, if you don't think public schools are the answer...then are you a home-school advocate?

Private schools or homeschooling. The choice is up to the family. Not up to anyone else (including government officials). [/b][/quote]
You make it sound like public schools are equivalent to prisons. I dunno about you but I was perfectly happy where I went to school. I got a good education and even earned a 75% paid tuition scholarship (and I'm not a super-genius who got a 4.0+ either).


By the way, there is such a thing (in the U.S. at least) called "school choice". This gives the students/parents the option to go to a school of their choice obviously, rather than the one they are districted to by default because of their home location.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by InTheSlot@Jan 17 2005, 03:28 PM
You make it sound like public schools are equivalent to prisons. I dunno about you but I was perfectly happy where I went to school. I got a good education and even earned a 75% paid tuition scholarship (and I'm not a super-genius who got a 4.0+ either).


By the way, there is such a thing (in the U.S. at least) called "school choice". This gives the students/parents the option to go to a school of their choice obviously, rather than the one they are districted to by default because of their home location.

Whats worse are the options presented with the abolishment of Public Education. How is it 'free' to force parents to pay more to send kids to private school? How is it 'free' to force a parent home from work to home-school their kids?

How can one argue for individual freedom by increasing the burden on the individual family?

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 17 2005, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 17 2005, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-InTheSlot@Jan 17 2005, 03:28 PM
You make it sound like public schools are equivalent to prisons. I dunno about you but I was perfectly happy where I went to school. I got a good education and even earned a 75% paid tuition scholarship (and I'm not a super-genius who got a 4.0+ either).


By the way, there is such a thing (in the U.S. at least) called "school choice". This gives the students/parents the option to go to a school of their choice obviously, rather than the one they are districted to by default because of their home location.

Whats worse are the options presented with the abolishment of Public Education. How is it 'free' to force parents to pay more to send kids to private school? How is it 'free' to force a parent home from work to home-school their kids?

How can one argue for individual freedom by increasing the burden on the individual family? [/b][/quote]
Yeah, I can agree with that. (I don't know why you quoted me, if you were just stacking on top of my points too...)

[moon]

I have been to public schools, been to basically want amounted to home-schooling and been to private scholling and I will tell you the difference nothing.

I could slack off as much as I wanted to at each. Could work as hard as I wanted to at each. To say that one is better is such a joke. It matters on the individaul student and what they will and want to do.

It is just as easy to succeed and fail at all three.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 17 2005, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 17 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-InTheSlot@Jan 17 2005, 03:28 PM
You make it sound like public schools are equivalent to prisons. I dunno about you but I was perfectly happy where I went to school. I got a good education and even earned a 75% paid tuition scholarship (and I'm not a super-genius who got a 4.0+ either).


By the way, there is such a thing (in the U.S. at least) called "school choice". This gives the students/parents the option to go to a school of their choice obviously, rather than the one they are districted to by default because of their home location.

Whats worse are the options presented with the abolishment of Public Education. How is it 'free' to force parents to pay more to send kids to private school? How is it 'free' to force a parent home from work to home-school their kids?

How can one argue for individual freedom by increasing the burden on the individual family? [/b][/quote]
More on private schooling among the poorest of the poor (India, Africa) I recommend the work of Pauline Dixon at the EG West Centre at University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.