Friday, May 17, 2019

Experimental anarchy

All science is anarchic.

Science follows rules, but not rulers. If there is a ruler controlling it, dictating what the results must be, it's not science.

Those who want you to think of anarchy as chaos and "everyone doing what they feel like" are denying reality.

Actually, they are lying. It might not be their fault; they have probably been lied to and didn't question what they were told. But it's still a lie. And they are perpetuating the lie instead of questioning the assertion and putting it to the test.

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.


  1. '...following rules, but not rulers' is about the best explanation I have seen with respect to your position. To me, that reads as allowing for the rule of law; that is right up my alley. Just for the record, I cannot overstate my distaste for the abhorrent rule of men.

    We all know that every individual, perhaps even most, cannot be trusted to adhere to the rule of law. So, what manner of discipline is the rule breaker subject to? Should there even be a punishment which fits the violation of the law? Who enforces? Enforcement includes restitution and/or penal consequences. Where? How? And how is that different than the system we have now?

    I grant that there are many who are corrupt within the system but is that an indictment of the system or of those persons?


    1. "Rule of law" is a myth. Therefore, I don't believe in "laws"; they are counterfeit rules. (Check the link on "counterfeit 'laws'" at the top of the page, just under the blog header.)

      I don't believe in punishment, since that is just a cutesy name for revenge.

      I believe in shunning (respecting the right of association) and self-defense-- consequences.

      Who enforces? Everyone. There should be no "system" set up for this, beyond, maybe, websites which list people who can't be trusted, and why. A "system' is going to be corrupt and will be misused. It's better to crowdsource it.

      A "system" is a "top down" approach, and has failure built in at the atomic level. Let these things evolve from the "ground up" through spontaneous order. It won't be perfect, but it may almost seem so by comparison to the mess we are accustomed to.

    2. Since I included restitution within 'enforcement' (perhaps I wasn't clear on that point) what do you propose to uphold the demand from one to the other to be made whole?

      Ex: some guy smashed his car into mine causing considerable damage. I say, 'pay up'. He says, 'go pound sand'.

      Clearly shunning (which I do agree with) is not appropriate here. Should a mob composed of 'everyone' descend upon his property to extract the means from him to make me whole?

      WRT to the rule of law I do see it as a 'bottom up' approach. Each individual carries the duty to comport themselves to that innate law which we were born knowing. Men have corrupted the law, regardless of original intentions. To expand on that corruption, it is now 'legal' to...uh, never mind. I think it obvious where I was going with that. Men convey entitlements and dare to call them rights. This is a mockery of all that is just.

      Last thing, I had previously asked how this new system would be different than what we have now. I do not expect perfect although I would expect marked significant differences.

      I await your reply if you so desire.


    3. I don't expect any "system" to uphold the demand that the restitution be paid. This post from my other blog illustrates one way non-compliance with restitution could be handled. Maybe you could think of other ways... but if it relies on a single "final authority", no thanks. If that "final authority" is funded non-voluntarily, double no.

      If, by "rule of law" you mean "consequences for violating others", then I agree. Most people, though, are meaning something more like "rule of legislation"-- if it has to be written down and imposed, it's not law, it's legislation (counterfeit "law").

      The difference is consent. I do not consent to the current "system" funded by theft and coercion. Because of the lack of consent, I will drag my feet and "forget" to cooperate, and might accidentally drop a shoe in the gears. But I would consent to a variety of voluntary experiments even if there were flaws. I would be willing to help and suggest improvements along the way. I could opt out of the flawed parts, and if enough others did, too, those flaws would be eliminated.

    4. Rick, I would propose an improved insurance system for handling restitution. If I hit your car and refuse to pay for it, you submit a claim to your insurance company and they cover all expenses immediately (rental car, repair or replacement, medical costs, etc...). Then your insurance company has a claim against me. If I have insurance, your insurance company collects from mine. If not, they get an arbitration decision against me and then proceed with shunning / blacklisting me. If I've refused to pay a valid debt, I probably wouldn't be accepted by any insurance companies. That would probably drastically limit which roads I'm allowed to drive on, since valid insurance would probably be a requirement for many (if not all) private roads. Not only might I be unable to drive, I might lose my job (like Kent mentioned) or miss out on friendships or romantic relationships since my black mark would be publicly viewable.