CDZ Anarchy vs. Minarchy (DEBATE - Larken Rose & Jan Helfeld)

[Brian Blackwell]

This thread is to discuss the issues raised in a debate between Larken Rose (Anarchist) and Jan Helfeld (Minarchist). Rose advocates no "government" where Helfeld advocates for small limited "government".

This radio broadcast is part of the PFP Movement Radio series, brought to you by www.peacefreedomprosperity.com

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe that everyone should be able to organize and practice their beliefs under the system
of their choice, treating political parties similar to religious or nonprofit organizations.

So if someone believes in living by socialism or conservativism, etc.
they just set up their communities and networks,
and make arrangements to conduct their business and legal matters accordingly.

Now one issue I ran into with people who believe in
free will under anarchist or under Satanist beliefs,
is with the belief that murder should not be criminalized or punished.

Because this conflicts with beliefs of other members in society,
clearly an agreement on terms would have to be met:

Only people who believe in the free will to murder someone
can be murdered under that policy. So then the issue comes
up on how to police that.

Part of the issue of Constitutionality in exercising one's beliefs:
if the i mpact of one's free exercise creates a burden on others,
those others should be able to CONSENT to the added burden or cost.

So if people AGREE to pay extra costs or staff or system
to police these different groups, so nobody who believes in
free will to murder imposes this on people OUTSIDE that group,
then that could be permitted. However, if the people don't agree
to be imposed on in order to accommodate this other group's beliefs,
then those members ought to cover that cost of the consequences.

So that's where it can get messy.

Such as people who believe in the right to health care
IMPOSING on the freedom of those who believe in free market
choices or charity providing health care, not govt forcing terms of health care on the public.

I believe we'd need to have Constitutional conferences
to agree what is constitutional or not, what causes impositions
and what process will be used to address conflicts of
political beliefs and interests.

Then it wouldn't matter if one person believes in Minarchy or Anarchy.
Everyone can have what they want if we agree how to
manage diversity and conflicts without imposing on each other.

The biggest issue I see is people not taking responsibility
for when their beliefs create a burden or consequence
on others who don't agree because their beliefs would prevent that added cost or problem.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I believe that everyone should be able to organize and practice their beliefs under the system
of their choice, treating political parties similar to religious or nonprofit organizations.

So if someone believes in living by socialism or conservativism, etc.
they just set up their communities and networks,
and make arrangements to conduct their business and legal matters accordingly.

Now one issue I ran into with people who believe in
free will under anarchist or under Satanist beliefs,
is with the belief that murder should not be criminalized or punished.

Because this conflicts with beliefs of other members in society,
clearly an agreement on terms would have to be met:

Only people who believe in the free will to murder someone
can be murdered under that policy. So then the issue comes
up on how to police that.

Part of the issue of Constitutionality in exercising one's beliefs:
if the i mpact of one's free exercise creates a burden on others,
those others should be able to CONSENT to the added burden or cost.

So if people AGREE to pay extra costs or staff or system
to police these different groups, so nobody who believes in
free will to murder imposes this on people OUTSIDE that group,
then that could be permitted. However, if the people don't agree
to be imposed on in order to accommodate this other group's beliefs,
then those members ought to cover that cost of the consequences.

So that's where it can get messy.

Such as people who believe in the right to health care
IMPOSING on the freedom of those who believe in free market
choices or charity providing health care, not govt forcing terms of health care on the public.

I believe we'd need to have Constitutional conferences
to agree what is constitutional or not, what causes impositions
and what process will be used to address conflicts of
political beliefs and interests.

Then it wouldn't matter if one person believes in Minarchy or Anarchy.
Everyone can have what they want if we agree how to
manage diversity and conflicts without imposing on each other.

The biggest issue I see is people not taking responsibility
for when their beliefs create a burden or consequence
on others who don't agree because their beliefs would prevent that added cost or problem.

Criminalization implies law, which implies valid authority, which is impossible. Murder being punishable, however, is simply a natural law right - the right of self-defense. There is no connection between anarchy and some erroneous notion of “the right to murder”.

The first thing to realize is that we’re talking about morality. Government and law is a moral concept - it is not merely the ability or permission to rule, it is the moral right to rule. This right is said to extend from “consent of the governed”, and consent being required is a moral idea.

However, natural law rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be given away or otherwise removed from the person. So even if you consent to someone ruling over you, you are still not within your rights to do so (nevermind consenting to them ruling over others).

This leaves us with self-defense as the only rule of law. Anything outside this scope is immoral. With this acknowledgement in mind, most issues sort themselves out rather easily. There are issues whose morality are difficult to discern, like abortion, but keeping man’s inherent self-ownership at the fore goes a very long way toward helping us make appropriate decisions.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe that everyone should be able to organize and practice their beliefs under the system
of their choice, treating political parties similar to religious or nonprofit organizations.

So if someone believes in living by socialism or conservativism, etc.
they just set up their communities and networks,
and make arrangements to conduct their business and legal matters accordingly.

Now one issue I ran into with people who believe in
free will under anarchist or under Satanist beliefs,
is with the belief that murder should not be criminalized or punished.

Because this conflicts with beliefs of other members in society,
clearly an agreement on terms would have to be met:

Only people who believe in the free will to murder someone
can be murdered under that policy. So then the issue comes
up on how to police that.

Part of the issue of Constitutionality in exercising one's beliefs:
if the i mpact of one's free exercise creates a burden on others,
those others should be able to CONSENT to the added burden or cost.

So if people AGREE to pay extra costs or staff or system
to police these different groups, so nobody who believes in
free will to murder imposes this on people OUTSIDE that group,
then that could be permitted. However, if the people don't agree
to be imposed on in order to accommodate this other group's beliefs,
then those members ought to cover that cost of the consequences.

So that's where it can get messy.

Such as people who believe in the right to health care
IMPOSING on the freedom of those who believe in free market
choices or charity providing health care, not govt forcing terms of health care on the public.

I believe we'd need to have Constitutional conferences
to agree what is constitutional or not, what causes impositions
and what process will be used to address conflicts of
political beliefs and interests.

Then it wouldn't matter if one person believes in Minarchy or Anarchy.
Everyone can have what they want if we agree how to
manage diversity and conflicts without imposing on each other.

The biggest issue I see is people not taking responsibility
for when their beliefs create a burden or consequence
on others who don't agree because their beliefs would prevent that added cost or problem.

Criminalization implies law, which implies valid authority, which is impossible. Murder being punishable, however, is simply a natural law right - the right of self-defense. There is no connection between anarchy and some erroneous notion of “the right to murder”.

The first thing to realize is that we’re talking about morality. Government and law is a moral concept - it is not merely the ability or permission to rule, it is the moral right to rule. This right is said to extend from “consent of the governed”, and consent being required is a moral idea.

However, natural law rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be given away or otherwise removed from the person. So even if you consent to someone ruling over you, you are still not within your rights to do so (nevermind consenting to them ruling over others).

This leaves us with self-defense as the only rule of law. Anything outside this scope is immoral. With this acknowledgement in mind, most issues sort themselves out rather easily. There are issues whose morality are difficult to discern, like abortion, but keeping man’s inherent self-ownership at the fore goes a very long way toward helping us make appropriate decisions.

Yes and no Brian Blackwell
It is still part of "natural law" that if you AGREE to submit yourself to the authority of another,
then, YES, you become subject to the consequences of that action.

I think you mean, just because you are ABLE to do that (such as having
Free Will to murder or steal) doesn't mean you have the 'right' to do that thing.

But yes, by natural laws, you still suffer the consequences of that,
which you are saying is basically violating your own rights in direct contradiction of your own free will.

Because people ALSO want to have "security" they are willing and CHOOSE to give
up freedom in exchange for having someone else make decisions for them when they'd rather have that!

Like hiring an editor to help you revise your writing or speech for you.
Yes, you can choose to relinquish your 'free speech' and let someone tell you how you should
say things to be more effective in that particular media or audience.

You can choose things like that.

it reminds me of that saying you get the government you ask for!

If you want to be ruled by a king, and you ask for that and set yourself
up for that, it's like be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

I personally cannot stand this whole business of "depending on govt to protect free choice"
WTF???

What this really means to me is people relying on people "as govt authority"
to AGREE on where we consent and dissent. So collectively we the people
decide as groups or communities, and that agreement is what keeps programs in place.

Like agreeing as a cast on what script we are going to follow,
and which person as director. So there isn't mass chaos but an orderly production.

When it's done by free will, that's when it works.

I can't stand this business of asking or agreeing to bullying to force
everyone to follow one way, but some people either want or need that
because of their place in development. If you want that, go for it,
but don't impose it on people who need to run their own show!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yes and no Brian Blackwell
It is still part of "natural law" that if you AGREE to submit yourself to the authority of another,
then, YES, you become subject to the consequences of that action.

I think you mean, just because you are ABLE to do that (such as having
Free Will to murder or steal) doesn't mean you have the 'right' to do that thing.

But yes, by natural laws, you still suffer the consequences of that,
which you are saying is basically violating your own rights in direct contradiction of your own free will.

Because people ALSO want to have "security" they are willing and CHOOSE to give
up freedom in exchange for having someone else make decisions for them when they'd rather have that!

Like hiring an editor to help you revise your writing or speech for you.
Yes, you can choose to relinquish your 'free speech' and let someone tell you how you should
say things to be more effective in that particular media or audience.

You can choose things like that.

it reminds me of that saying you get the government you ask for!

If you want to be ruled by a king, and you ask for that and set yourself
up for that, it's like be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

I personally cannot stand this whole business of "depending on govt to protect free choice"
WTF???

What this really means to me is people relying on people "as govt authority"
to AGREE on where we consent and dissent. So collectively we the people
decide as groups or communities, and that agreement is what keeps programs in place.

Like agreeing as a cast on what script we are going to follow,
and which person as director. So there isn't mass chaos but an orderly production.

When it's done by free will, that's when it works.

I can't stand this business of asking or agreeing to bullying to force
everyone to follow one way, but some people either want or need that
because of their place in development. If you want that, go for it,
but don't impose it on people who need to run their own show!

I think you nailed it by citing the difference between "ability" and "right" and the natural law consequences of our decisions.

We are able to perpetually ignore our rights by submitting to another's authority, but not morally - we have no right to do so. This means there will be consequences of that action, and the consequence will be slavery, in some form, to some degree. This is the inherent link between morality and freedom. This consequence is in effect as long as we persist in the ignoring of the right in question - the right to consent.

You cannot consent to give up consent. By it's nature, consent can be revoked at any time (or better said, it must be continually reaffirmed), as consent is a moment-to-moment consideration (as exemplified by the scenario of date rape). There is a contradiction in the idea of consenting to give up rights, which implies giving up consent. You cannot actually give up any right - it is unalienable - you can only choose to not defend yourself against infringements upon it. Here we see how defense is intrinsically linked with rights and morality. To not defend against infringement is immoral because it equates to giving up consent, or giving up rights. The pacifist is immoral, for he takes a position that is pro-infringement of rights.

The notion of rights is subtle, though. We say people don't have a right to attack you, but this isn't the whole story. I can consent to a martial arts contest, in which I want the person to attack me, given certain guidelines. The most important guideline being that my continual consent, or lack thereof, is recognized. So a right has not been given away here, we're just using the word "attack" in two different ways. The bad attack is one in which there is no mutual consent.

Morality is circumstantial; not that it changes depending upon circumstance, but that it is defined by circumstance. You can consent to any individual action - even being killed (as in euthanasia) - but you cannot consent to be killed at another's discretion. In other words, you cannot consent to coming under another's authority. This is the "sin" that brings the consequence of slavery, and that's what government always is. It is the error of believing you can consent to give away consent. That you can consent generally to give up consent over particulars, or that you can consent in one moment to have your consent ignored going forward.

This does not exist, and to pretend it does is the act of immorality. Immorality is essentially to ignore what is. Natural law rights exist, and to not acknowledge them yields undesirable consequences, just like ignoring gravity. The laws governing behavioral consequences are one; morality is not distinct from the physical laws of nature in this regard. And just as we continually discover more about the laws of physics, we will discover more about moral law as time goes on. Luckily, we know enough to get by for now, namely, the non-aggression principle (which also implies self-defense).

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Brian: Thanks again for posting this video and being willing to discuss in such depth and detail these natural laws vs. govt incorporation of them.

A. First topic is comparing whether to get rid of ALL govt as unnecessary and prone to abuse,
or just to limit and police govt to perform "necessary" functions, if this is agreed to be necessary.

B. the speakers sidetracked a little on the responses they have gotten from govt or from politicians,
and how they take this to mean negative and not willing or able to work with such people or institutions.

C. the topic where I had to stop in the middle of the video was on the use of govt or arms for security
and defense, and to what degree this was or was not necessary and could be done by individuals without govt.

First
RE: A whether some, all or no govt is necessary

1. if the problems with govt are abuse of collective power influence or authority BEYOND the level of individuals,
then this problem happens with ANY and ALL "collective institutions" whether nonprofit, religious, political, educational, business corporations, Media, etc.
So if you are saying we can't trust or shouldn't have GOVT to act as collective authority greater than individuals,
what about other types of organizations that get just as corrupted, abusive and oppressive?

(BTW my solution to this issue of collective abuse is to hold ALL collective entities to the same standards in the Bill of Rights that defend rights of individuals. Because technically the letter of the law only applies to govt required to follow these standards, and not individuals or corporations, this level of compliance with uniform standards would have to be voluntary. But what we could do as citizens is require that states that register corporations licenses for operating in that state can set terms by which those corporations must have means for redressing grievances to prevent abuses. This may not be the same as 'getting rid' of the problems caused by govt or other collective entities, but it is SIMILAR to what you are arguing that these entities should not have more power to do things beyond what individuals can do and consent to.)

2. if you are saying that if individuals cannot force taxation on others, then neither should govt,
why not make ALL taxation voluntary as with nonprofit donations or business investments?
Would that solve the problem?

3. I would agree with you that if the basis of social interactions between Individuals is based on CONSENT or informed choice,
and ability to change the contract mutually, and to petition directly to resolve any disputes, grievances or complaints of abuse that arise,
then so should GOVT relations be based on this principle of "consent of the governed" "no taxation without representation"
and right to "due process" instead of being deprived of liberty, life or property without consent or agreed "process" for resolving and settling terms of any exchange.

We may both agree that the current govt systems are convoluted, wasteful bureaucracy of that abuse resources and authority to create more debt
by political and corporate profit off problems instead of solving them for public benefit service and duty.

But instead of arguing to get rid of all govt, I would approach this as shifting current govt to the parties who want responsibility for those areas of service.

The current govt and laws may be terribly unnatural distortions of anything even resembling natural law and order,
but even da Vinci started with a blank slab of marble before carving out masterpieces. Whatever we are starting
from here, that is like clay that can be reshaped by delegating these areas out to people or parties with both the
vision and ability to reform them into something that works.

To set up such a plan of complete reformation, I would start with the blueprint given in the Constitution as the framework,
and anything that isn't delinated in there, if the various Parties want certain functions or agencies to continue working,
these should be delegated to them similar to buying out a business or taking over a nonprofit. Then allowing taxpayers
to CHOOSE to fund that program or reform based on it, preferably organized by Party so this can be collectively done on a national and state level
without unnecessary disruption of the services or policies that certain sectors rely on.

An issue of govt law and order that was brought up in the other topics B or C
was that people felt compelled to obey govt, more so than individuals acting independently.
So the concern was that wrongs committed by individuals could be defended against and policed,
but wrongs committed by govt were tolerated.

I agree that there is a HUGE issue of "govt immunity"
being abused, and especially judicial abuse going unchecked where this gets out of hand.

Where you and I may disagree is whether this abuse can best be checked by "getting rid of all govt"
or by ENFORCING the Constitutional laws we do have to check and reform govt, and to demand restitution for such wrongs.

I believe this check against abuses, whether abuse of govt or corporate authority, is best done by
invoking the common language given to us in Constitutional terms. So where you and I both agree
in enforcing Natural laws, I see the Constitution as giving more organized power and leverage to
citizens in INVOKING authority to enforce these laws, especially by exercising freedom of speech
and press as part of "democratic due process" and "right to petition for redress of grievances."

When we practice common language for the same principles, people can act collectively in unison,
similar to the power of "collective bargaining" used by unions to defend the voices of individuals.

Both Govt and Unions thus can be used correctly for defense of individual rights against collective oppression and abuse,
as well as getting ABUSED to commit the very abusive oppression that their whole purpose was to defend.
Just like guns, the very weapons used for defense of law can be abused to violate laws and due process of individuals.
The solution is not to get rid of guns or govt, but to standardize the proper use of these for enforcement and defense
of natural laws and rights.

B. RE: whether govt or politicians can be worked with or can only lie to defend their political interests in keeping
the machine going and to resist any change or correction, so the situation is hopeless

In general, I find that if you/we approach govt officials or political candidates with the intent of proving them
wrong or undercutting them, of course, they will respond by defending themselves from attacks on their beliefs or positions.
We would do the same when someone comes to us, not to work on improvement or correction of a problem,
but to attack and cut us down as something they oppose and don't believe in working with.

So you get what you give.

For everyone who wants big govt and depends on that as the central authority to push for social justice and reforms,
there are others who want NO govt and demand the opposite.

Ideally, what I believe will level this playing field is holding each person or group responsible for paying for what
they believe in supporting. If we all do this, then we can only take on what we agree to be responsible for.

So in the case of whether or not "Bernie Sanders" would be reasonable to work with (as an example given in the video),
why not approach him with the idea of organizing support to fund the reforms he lobbies for?
If workers are going to own their own coops, why not set that up without relying on govt?

If you try a different approach of collaborating with people, the response you get will change as well
from competitive to collaborative.

Now with the IRS (and how one speaker got prison time for evading tax policies), the process would
involve CHANGING the laws to be voluntary in order to be more fully Constitutional. That's where I would
recommend (a) changing policies and tax forms where citizens can CHOOSE which health plan, or
welfare/marriage benefits and terms to support by checking boxes for their preferences OR (b)
setting up state or district programs where taxpayers can donate/invest money directly into
the health care/social benefits they support and deduct that from their taxes.

So Brian if you did not believe in govt mandated health care, social security, military etc.
you should have equal choice to invest in completely independent self-governing institutions
or districts that concur with your beliefs and cover all the same responsibilities so that you
are not indirectly relying on services from govt that other taxpayers are paying for.

This can get into deeper discussion of how are you and other Anarchists going to account
for national security or local law enforcement, including handling of abuses or crimes.
It's one thing to say you believe or don't believe in criminalizing and govt punishment
for drug use or sales, but another thing for people to PAY for the policy they believe in:
are the people who believe in legalization willing to pay the consequences for drug use,
and are the people who believe in prosecution willing to pay the cost of that policing?

Again, you will get a different answer or response if you approach a person or party
based on rejecting and wanting to prove them wrong vs. offering them SUPPORT to
fund and manage the policy they are pushing for.

So those are two more clarifications that I would say are also part of natural laws:
1. if you or other groups believe or don't believe in certain functions or on limits of govt,
isn't it the natural responsibility of each individual or group to pay for the consequences
of THEIR OWN BELIEFS and the impact or cost of preventing infringement of others who don't agree
and believe in something else.
2. isn't it part of natural law that how you approach someone is going to affect how they respond to you.
so if you want them to change how they react, it's halfway and equally your responsibility
to change how you approach them as well. I find this is a mutual process by natural laws of human relations.

I was going to try to at least get started on topic C about whether guns or govt
are able to defend security and to what extent, given the current ability to use
technology to bypass the normal limits of what individuals can do under natural laws,
but this is so long, let me stop here and start a separate post for C. I stopped the
video around that section, about halfway through, so maybe I will finish the rest
before I take on C. I can't read my notes very well, and may have to rewind the video!

Thanks Brian

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Brian thanks again for posting this, and I'm trying to consolidate the notes I made on most of the content I could capture in intelligible notes:
0. Again there was a whole commentary on addressing and getting responses from politicians in opposition.
And my reply to that was that people respond differently when approached by peers seeking correction and improvement
IN RELATIONSHIP or partnership/collaboration, vs. people attacking to discredit someone's viewpoint. So if the approach
is to seek where two sides actually AGREE, and then clarifying and correcting where there are conflicts or differences, that approach yields a different response/reaction and has greater chance of succeeding at establishing points of agreement and positive constructive steps to take moving forward.
Where this relates to the debate at hand is the whole "all or nothing" approach (unlimited govt vs. no govt at all) vs. how much of govt can we agree on and
how do we set it up and enforce that process so it DOESN'T get abused by forcing people to give up freedom or money/property against free will.
If we start and stick to where we AGREE, then we resolve the issues REGARDLESS what system someone uses. The problem is solved even if people have
different reasons or systems for how they justify or frame that process that the people agree to use, regardless what system they are coming from.

1. Question of taxation: if people do not have the right to force others to abdicate their property or money to others, then how can Govt be justified as having such authority
Obviously my position that if people CONSENT to a central process or system, and an entity with means of administrating that process,
aligns more with the minarchist argument that the majority of people agree and believe that they have more protection by authorizing a central govt to tax them for
military/security/defense costs of operations rather than have "no govt" or "unlimited govt".
The opposition stated that even WITH "limited" govt (or unlimited govt, either one) the gang forces acting for predatory or private benefit
would HIJACK the govt system and corrupt it/abuse it to achieve the same end as having "gangs" compete for power and control.
So that govt does not solve this problem, whether it is limited or unlimited, it's going to get corrupted anyway.

The minarchist argues that even with "imperfect" limited govt, that's still better or safer than unlimited govt, or no govt which falls to gangs to compete to monopolize control.

Brian: My added position is that with the Constitutional system, people have ability to ENGAGE as directly as each person is willing to serve
in order to have control in this process. Either by voting, or by interacting with govt (or media or parties), or by enlisting directly in police or military.
What the Constitutional system offers differently from "other systems of govt" is similar to teaching people the laws in the Bible in order to operate church programs directly themselves; in the case of govt, when people are empowered by knowledge of the laws and democratic due process, the people BECOME the govt and start acting as that authority.

The corruption happens (in ANY system whether church or state, business or nonprofit, religious political or educational, ANY COLLECTIVE organization) when there are greater collective resources, authority or influence concentrated in a few people in charge, and there is not direct enough check between THOSE people and the greater numbers of people affected or represented by the larger organization. Where there is a division of class, and the process of representation or redressing grievances between them gets ABUSED, bypassed or backlogged/obstructed, then the power over the individuals and influence goes unchecked.

So the solution to this is to have transparency and democratic communications and "process of redressing grievances" so that the few effectively represent the many, and power does not get abused or go unchecked. Thus, the purpose of the Bill of Rights being added as a CONDITION for implementing the Constitution giving limited enumerated duties and authority to a central federal govt. We need this same protection of individual rights and process to be the standard for ALL collective institutions, not just govt, but also religious and political organizations, business and nonprofit, educational and media conglomerates, any kind of corporation should be required to redress grievances so there is no abuse of power to oppress individuals in ways that individuals would not be permitted to do to each other.

2. Question of military force being necessary by govt to protect against either foreign or domestic threats

A. The minarchist argues that the central govt has to have such a monopoly on force that this deters lesser forces from even attempting attacks.

I question is it really because the govt has MORE military capacity that this deters attacks?

I believe the authority comes from UNIFIED consent of the people to vest this authority.

For example, if several small groups or states combine and authorize an action, it's not the size of force that puts the weight behind that,
but it's the fact that 3-5 different entities united together and represent the agreement between them that gives it weight.

I believe there is some "spiritual psychology" involved here. Another example, if three leaders from the Jewish Muslim and Christian faith join together in prayer
and agreement, and issue a joint statement declaring peace between followers of these three tribes; those three in agreement have more authority and weight
than if millions of tribal members of the Zionists or Christians team up against 10 million Muslims and they oppose each other and want to fight to defend their beliefs.

The anarchist seems to frame "obedience to govt" as some kind of blind faith or blind authority.
That the people only agree to bow to these taxes and actions against their will out of wanting to "obey the law"

But because of our Constitutional system, I believe this is operating out of faith that if there is some injustice, then people can correct it democratically by
following the civil process. The faith is not in blindly obeying this govt, but in seeking corrections. And in order to use the system "in good standing"
each person complies with it while pursuing the process of challenging or changing what is wrong with it.

It's part of the principle that in order to ENFORCE the laws (ie people correcting govt by holding it to its own Constitutional standards)
then people must be following the laws, but can't be BREAKING the laws and expect to be respected as equal authority in enforcing them.

This is both a Christian concept (of respecting civil authority and human institutions in order to serve as a witness to justice in the face of injustice)
as well as Natural Law that in order to be respected when making corrections BY the laws, one must be seen as agreeing to comply with them, until such changes are made.

B. as for foreign threats of invasion

Aside from whether one country or company or another has greater organized forces or power to threaten/destroy another,
there is also the factor of ECONOMIC influence and benefit.

Currently, in the case of negotiations between China, US and Korea, the issue of US continuing to buy from China
seems to be the deciding factor in leverage to compel China to pressure Korea to follow the same line of thinking.
The trade relations played a greater role in how these countries agree to interact, and put pressure on or take it off.

In the end, for populations and countries to sustain, there has to be cooperative economics, where all sides benefit
and invest in each other's growth.

As for the "predatory" nature of people in groups or gangs, and whether that will continue,
people live by "scarcity mentality" and fear of unfair competition
until we discover "abundance mentality" and the mutual benefits of living by mutual investment and cooperative development.

I agree with the anarchist that this principle of doing all things VOLUNTARILY is the ideal.

But until all people in all factions of society and every nation evolve to this level of managing both locally and globally by social responsibility and free choice,
then each group still has to take responsibility for its own beliefs and principles of operation.

So if one group believes in paying for armed military defense, those people should have the right to fund and be under that policy.
If another group believes in noncoercion and completely voluntary compliance by free will, that group should be able to manage
its own operations by its own policies.

For example, if you look at how Buddhist Sanghas operate, or Jehovah's Witnesses, these are some groups that
practice peaceful compliance without reliance on physical force. And it's just because there are other people and groups
in society that don't agree to those practices, that they still need police to possibly use force to apprehend attackers who might
otherwise prey on these peaceful groups and members as easy targets.

If we can set up ways for all groups to govern their own members by their own terms, I have no problem with that.

It isn't fair for any one group to impose their beliefs and the costs and consequences of those onto other groups
who'd rather pay for a different standard or solution.

Overall Brian I agree more with the Minarchist that just getting rid of all govt is not going to solve the problems
of oppressing people and abusing force by one predatory group over another. I agree with the Anarchist argument
that even with limited govt, the same predatory groups end up infiltrating and setting up their own oligarchy or monopoly
(in the case of the US Constitutional system, this has become corrupted by private interests bypassing checks and
balances by abusing Corporations to have both individual rights AND collective influence outside govt limits, and
then these Corporate interests run amok have then corrupted the legal/judicial system by campaign financing,
the parties and media by buying out influence).

The solution I didn't see either side present was the ability, role and responsibility of people getting involved
as directly as possible IN the democratic process to provide input, checks and corrections.

This isn't done by anarchy. It's done using the given structures we have set up. But maybe using them
in new ways to reform and refine the given system.

The Green party has promoted going through the AG and State offices to check corporations against
abuses by petitioning to remove charters and revoke licenses of collective entities that abuse power to oppress individual rights and protections.
That's one way.

The Libertarians I have consulted have argued for pursuing Grand Jury power on the level of people per state.
And one suggested reforming the Electoral College system. Where I would suggest implementing the Green
party idea of "proportional representation by party" and "consensus" process of decision making instead of majority rule
to resolve conflicts and put the emphasis on mutually agreed solutions instead of competing for party dominance to control process and policy.

Because of conflicts beliefs between parties, from abortion to gun rights, health care, schools and now immigration,
that's why I advocate for separating terms and taxation by party so that groups can vote in and fund their own policies of choice
when it comes to social programming that is subjective and prone to differences by beliefs.

And limit federal govt and taxes to just those areas where all people and parties AGREE belongs on a federal, national and centralized level.
While delegating the rest to the states and people, by district or party or whatever it takes to separate jurisdiction on conflicting issues.

Thanks again for posting this Brian
and sorry it took so long to post in response.

Brian Blackwell