"pretty" uncorruptible.

So let's review what we have learned so far ITT. And I'm not being sarcastic, because we have actually learned quite a bit regarding ACism ITT, if fact more than all the other ACist hijacks that have come before.

• There is no Constitution, or other "statist" documents or agreements, binding the various property owners together under ACism.
• Under ACism, property owners deal with foreign affairs, which also obviously includes affairs with their neighboring owners, each directly as individual and sovereign.
• It is reasonable to believe a competition among private publishers of Model Rules codes would exist on the "free market" under ACism. Since most property owner won't want to write all their own rules, they could voluntarily subscribe to one of these competing Model Rules and then as owner promulgate those rules as law over their territory. This is what ACists call "competition in law services".
• Of course, all property owners would retain the freedom to unilateral promulgate any amendments to subscribed Model Rules to fit his local circumstances and desires. And under ACism owners also always retain the freedom to write their complete set of rules from scratch, and promulgate them as law, if they wanna go to all that work.
• The owner has the freedom to promulgate any set of rules whatsoever over their territory, or no rules at all, as they wish. Under ACism, these rules may designate any sanctions for rule breaking, up to and including death for serious offences, again as the owner wishes.
• Even though not promulgating rules against rape or commercial fraud might be consider immoral (under ACist morality), it is still the owner's sole decision in ACland under ACist law. More important... it would be against both ACist law and ACist morality for anyone to use "force" upon an owner to make that owner promulgate any laws against his wishes.
• Right now today there is competition among honest private security companies. Since most owners under ACism surely wouldn't want to personally and physically defend their territory, they could hire and duly deputize one of these security companies. This is what ACists call "competition in enforcement services"
• Of course, under ACism, the owners always retain the freedom to take enforcement "in-house" and duly deputize a Loss Prevention team instead of hiring an outside security vendor. Large landowners would obviously prefer this option because of economies of scale, and particularities to his territory being handled with higher quality service.
• Right now today there is competition among honest private adjudication services. Since most owners under ACism wouldn't want to Sit in Court personally, they could hire and duly authorize private Adjudication services. In fact a good strategy for encouraging visitors in ACland would be for an owner's agents to maintain a list several reputable private adjudication services, which the accused chooses from. This is what ACists call "competition in court services".
• Of course, under ACism, the owners would always retain the freedom to adjudication matters regarding their territory by naming a single third party adjudication service, by taking it in house and establishing an Adjudication Department, or directly "Sitting in Court" to personally hear and decide any claims. Again, like all things in ACland, this would be at the owner's sole discretion.

So once again ACistista's, I am just repeating what your fellow ACists have stated above ITT. So if you disagee, please tell me why and explain... please, please, please... don't just say "wrong" or "no" without any explanation or discussion.

I mean how can you expect to convert people to ACism, if you keep making it a "state secret" and forcing people to "pull teeth" just to get an answer to the simplest, basic, and foundation principles even are?

Society as a whole allows enforcement to occur. Maybe you need the guns, maybe you don't.

No. Depends if you are interacting with these people. Probably.


Yes, except the public army.

I think the problem with looking at Acism and asking "how will this work?" is that we are too far away. Right now it is a theory that markets will provide anything that is demanded by consumers. Before we look at things like "what about police?" things like "how to close the post office" have to be solved. I view someone trying to figure out what the defense organizations will look like similar to someone in the 1800s talking about what space flight will be like. We can have an idea based on theory, but to try to pin down the particulars is pretty futile.

I'm confused about the whole "social norms" thingee too. My question is... is there anything unique about ACland regarding "social norms" than in the real world?

I mean, obviously a hypothetical absolute King of Bhutan could command a heckler be executed. But it probably wouldn't go good for him, correct? Especially if (let's say) the "social norms" in his Kingdom don't recognize a kings authority to command the death penalty. So at that point enough of the civil society might say "fudge that, fudge monarchy, fudge "statist" morality.... let's stop being sheeple and string that King up!". At that point both the monarchy and "statism" have catastrophically failed, as they were completely unable to mediate the dispute in question internally, or peacefully for that matter. And the result is "anarchy" alright... using the definition of word which means "chaotic violence".

So the analogous hypothetical situation in ACland would be... the hypothetical owners of ACist King Ranch promulgate and enforce a law that executes hecklers. But it probably wouldn't go good for them, correct? Especially if (it's a stretch, but let's say) the "social norms" in Texas don't recognize an owners authority to command the death penalty. So at that point enough of the civil society might say "fudge that, fudge ACism, fudge "ACist" morality.... let's stop being sheeple and string that owner up!". At that point both the ACland and "ACism" have catastrophically failed, as they were completely unable to mediate the dispute in question internally, or peacefully for that matter. And the result is "anarchy" alright... using the definition of the word which means "chaotic violence".

Is this what ACists mean by "social norms"?

If not, please, please, please.... correct me and give an explanation. I'm just guessing here... you don't have to keep your "ideal" secret, do you.... please, please, please don't... OK?

Will be out possibly a few days, on phone so not responding til home

MissleDog, why should ACists keep responding to you when you are absent in the synidcalism thread?

Oh dear. Profit is their main incentive? How terrible. I wish they would be like Steve Jobs who invented the Iphone not to make money, but because he cared so much about us all.

Because they don't have any connection to each other, not even in the slightest.

Why wouldn't ACists wanna chat about ACism for it's own sake?

Like for instance, can you give me a "thumbs up", or any help full corrections and explanations, on my ten point summary of what we have learned from ACists ITT (post #902)?

Please notice I haven't been saying "ACism" wouldn't work, or anything like that ITT. I just have been asking simple honest questions about basic ACist theorizing... you know, thing's like how property rights would work for the owners. And how there might be competition in legal codes, enforcement services, and adjudication.

Also, while you're at it giving corrections and explanations, how did I do describing what ACists are talking about in Post #905? Do I have the concept well explained here? Maybe I have the basic concept but missed some of the nuance? Or did the whole "social norms" just go over my head?

And if so... please, please, please... I'm begging you... how about a correction and an explanation... not just "wrong" or "no!"... OK? Did you ever think that if Acists wouldn't make learning about ACism such a long drawn out and tiring guessing game... maybe more people would be interested in hearing about it?

But why don't ASists want to chat about ASism in its own sake???

We can't ask you about your system and solutions here, so participate in the ASism thread why dontcha

if we were to transition into AC it would take minimum 3 years. the government could announce that they will be dissolving and all government assets will be auctioned off over a period of time, beginning about 12 months in the future. You could begin with the post office and auction it to Fedex, UPS, dhl or w/e, but there are various other government services that can be phased out.
We may come to a point in the near future where public outrage is so high against the government, that transitioning into private receivership will be the best idea, from a rational standpoint.
The most difficult part about dissolving the government and privatising, might be a portion of the government employees who will realize that they will need to work a real job which may come with a paycut

I tried doing an ASKME about anarchism (in general, not just Industrial Unionism) and that thread got ran over by the professional trolls and the infamous AC-hijack. I have pretty much concluded that this topic cannot be intelligently discussed on this BBS, because of the severity of the "info-jamming" the usual suspects feel is necessary. But maybe next January I'll try again...

Anyway I haven't been sarcastic... this is probably the best ACist thread for actually getting some pretty basic questions answered.

So how about it... how about making some positive, informative, and explainitve comments regarding my recap of what ACists have told us so far ITT (#902), and my attempt to explain "social norms" to the "statists" (#905) ??? ???

No I think it's time for you to answer some questions about ASism. There's almost a THOUSAND posts ITT.

If ASism is so great then surely you'd want the focus on it instead of ACism, right???