lol

Whatever they had on alderan isn't practical because they had that and the death star blowed em up.

Democracy isnt practical because they had that and they got outcompeted hard core by other forms of rule. And then those ones got dominated. But now we've got representative democracy, and its here to stay, convincingly demonstrating that whatever is currently in vogue for the last eye-blink of history is superior, and all other systems have been demonstrated to be impractical. For the next five minutes.

Now your getting it

ctyri, superleeds,
You have a unique philosophy. It seems that you wouldnt consider it an act of aggression to destroy someone elses property? I think where you disagree with Nielso is not on the idea of initation of force but on the idea of property. If you reject the idea of private property then your position makes sense but if you accept the philosophical concept that a person can own something I'm really confused as how you can not consider destroying it an act of aggression.

We really don't

What makes it someone else's property? Why is my right to it any less than his?

Probably both. But particularly is idea of initiation of force which contends that he, and he alone, is the only morally acceptable voice if the question arises of whether he feels unfairly treated in any dispute he is involved in.

I reject the idea that an enduring society can function without laws and the ability to enforce those laws. I've never seen it happen. History has never seen it happen.

Do you claim everything new is impossible? If not then you need an extra claim/argument here.

If anarchy had never been given a chance to evolve into an enduring anarchic society you may have a point. But if you insist, as well as History, the evidence suggests I'm right too.

Ok, if you are just saying that an enduring anarchic society is unlikely then fine.

But you seem to be claiming that past failures mean that it is impossible. Using the same logic would you have concluded in 1900 that flying was impossible for humans? There had been lots of failed attempts.

Given that presently a basic human trait is selfishness and that empathy recedes exponentially the further removed one is from anothers suffering I am saying an anarchic society is not just unlucky but impossible. I will concede that should selfishness and the empathy one may feel for an unknown person becoming equal to that of a family member then an AC society may be a realistic possibility. When we make that leap I'm sure a lot of crap we feel is important now won't be.

Ok, that's a different argument. Are you conceding that <never before> does not imply <never in the future>?

I don't understand. It's my argument why anarchy as preached by ACists is not a practical form of society. You know, the point of this thread.

If by concede you mean agree with something I've always agreed with then yeah I concede.

Arent we, presumably, working towards a more socialist, communal, global government? I dont mean those in the four-letter word sense, but in the best-meaning-of-the-word sense. Isnt this the idea?

Or are you suggesting a more totalitarian approach? I guess what I'm saying is that I dont understand how selfishness and lack of empathy are any more of a reason for anarchy to be unsuccessful than they are for large goverments to be unsuccessful. It doesnt make any sense. If the entire world is predicated on ruthless selfishness and lack of empathy, then representative democracy seems like a really, really REALLY bad idea....far worse than anarchy.

In short, you've got it basically exactly backwards. If humans were these loving, compassionate, selfless creatures you wish they were, then big governments wouldnt be such a bad idea. Since they arent, monopolies on force and this massive shunting of externalities seems like an inevitable recipe for disaster.

But if you are actually just saying that humans are selfish and bad, and therefore cannot be allowed to decide for themselves or anyone else and must be told what to do, then thats fine. I just want it to be clear that the system we currently have is much worse for a bunch of selfish people than any anarchic system I can imagine.

I don't think selfishness is an issue but I would say
1. People's fear of other's selfishness
2. There are always (in all likelihood) enough people who are at the lower end of
free-market lifestyle expectations to not want to give that up regardless of
promised incentives
3. It would be too hard now to "unwind" a state

is enough reason that it would not happen without some fundamental change in people and even then it may not happen (I know I see no answer to #3 that would satisfy me unless a state's assets are less than its liabilities).

Given that this is absolutely true, a libertarian society of some sort is the only sensible system DUCY?