Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Barakistan

If as Hawk posted on another thread, we stuck in strong masculine energy so live with it, than other than just talking there is nothing we can do about our state of affairs.

Sorry, but I do not see how these notions could possibly work in the modern world, given the nature of man. Businesses would form their own armies, religions would form their own armies, and complete chaos would result. You could only have a measure of peace so long as everyone agreed to the exact same principles - fantasy land.

We HAD the best government ever designed - let's get back to it. The notion of creating a means of checking government to force it back into its intended box was never really elaborated upon and that is a notion that appeals to me.

The Constitution and KISS.

Barak, give a hypothetical of how the country runs; create a Barakistan, describe it's day-to-day.

Also, would there be neighboring countries?

Certainly not a State court system, that's for sure. All of us know of countless examples of miscarriages of State justice, and we can be assured that there are many others that we never hear about.

Essentially, humans are biased creatures; there is no such thing as a completely unbiased verdict.

However, using free-market forces, we can get pretty dang close. In a private court system, a particular judge's income would depend on the public perception of his impartiality and fairness. If Judge A is fairer than Judge B, then Judge A will steal Judge B's business and get rich, while Judge B will be reduced to wearing the blue vest at Wal-Mart.

Judges under a State, of course, can be as partial and corrupt as they like as long as they don't get caught at it, and as long as they can continue to bribe or intimidate people into voting for them.

reading Barak's bizarre telling of how his criminal law system would work kind of tells you why such systems were abandoned

Sounds to me like anarchy would work in an insulated society with no outside aggressors or internal strife; in other words, it won't work.

I place my faith in the wisdom of the founders and the Constitution that they created.

It's incumbent upon their descendants to defend their liberties, and if they are unwilling to do that, then they do not deserve them, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.

I can't even describe day-to-day operations of the US--especially not today--and it's not even hypothetical. You'll need to be more specific.

Neighboring countries? Heck, there might even be containing countries. It's unlikely that a free society will arise from somebody buying an island or a tract of land somewhere and starting his own country on it. That's kind of the opposite of freedom.

Free Men exist today, scattered around the general population. Occasionally, a pocket of them happen to either live close together or do business together or otherwise share something in common; that's the beginning of a free society. If it takes hold and grows, people who are Free Men will be attracted to it, and people who are Livestock will be attracted away from it.

If the State that surrounds it grows more onerous and oppressive, more people on the margin who were formerly undifferentiated will differentiate themselves into Free Men and Livestock, and once more the Free Men will be drawn to the free society and the Livestock will be drawn away from it.

If the free society is successful and prosperous enough to become widely known, that too will drive undifferentiated people to differentiate themselves and act accordingly.

When a free society is small, it's probably in its best interest to conceal itself to the extent possible from the State that claims jurisdiction over it. When it's big enough to secede and make it stick, that's what I'd expect to see.

I understand where you're trying to drive me: you want to maneuver me into a position where you can point out that States bordering a free society will invade, conquer, and crush it.

I don't hold with that--I expect we'll get into that later--but I would like to point out the underlying assumptions.

You're assuming that any State bordering a free society would automatically be alarmed at the concept of people living in freedom and liberty so close to its borders and immediately do its best to eliminate that liberty and bring them under its heel.

And this is the State that you're advocating?

That's what I mean when I say that the State is immoral and should be abolished. Yes, I have my ideas about what life might be like without it; but even if I'm wrong about all those ideas, the truth of the original assertion remains: the State is immoral and should be abolished. Even if it turns out that without the State we would all be living in caves and chipping edges into stone axes, the State is still immoral and should be abolished.

So what happens if a gang of Hells Angels moves in, robs your house, kills your family and then moves on to another part of the "country"? How would a single person expect to get juctice when he perhaps doesn' know who was involved and where they have gone? Are you suggesting he would pay a private company to investigate and apprehend them? What checks and balances would exist to ensure the right people were apprehended and that the evidence was legitimate?

anybody who has any experience with a real system which, although far from perfect like all manmade things, functions pretty well can and will tell you that your proposal is unworkable in execution.

If that happened--which it wouldn't as we'll see in a bit--I'd be due a truly enormous settlement from my Personal Protection Agency. Or, rather, from its insurance company.

And all its other customers would be looking on very closely to see whether it paid me or not. So would its competitors. If it didn't, those other customers would leave it in droves, and there'd be a premium war among its competitors to attract them. (No government protection for insurance companies in a free society.)

Given that, my PPA is going to spend whatever it takes up to the amount of the settlement specified in my contract to make sure I stay safe from Hell's Angels.

And given that, the gang of Hell's Angels is going to go looking for easier prey. However, the only people who aren't subscribed to PPAs will probably be those who are so poor they're not worth robbing anyway...whereupon the Hell's Angels will likely give up their lives of crime and take up knitting and Sunday-school teaching instead.

Seems like EVERYONE is a fan of big government.

You'd be a real benefit to the cause of restoring the Republic established by the Founding Fathers.

Not very knowledgeable about anarchy, but is there an example of an anarchistic society alive and well on the planet today? Ot is this whole thing a mental exercise?