Originally Posted by Ele

Despite all that, again, you've evaded my point. I'm trying to get you to confirm your position that there are no downsides to anarchy. We both know why you're refusing to address it - it's clearly ridiculous, and obviously a position taken by someone who hasn't done their research.

Originally Posted by Ele

My argument isn't that if you disagree with me then you're wrong, it's that even a halfwit can recognise that no political system is without its share of downsides. Surely, you're smart enough to account for the fact that there's shit you don't know, and that it might be a good idea to take that into consideration when making bold statements like 'there's no downside to anarchy'.

Originally Posted by ynvaser

I'd just like to ask you guys, how the hell do you maintain order in an anarchy? How do you prevent warlords and the like from rising and forcing their will on others?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

How do you prevent it in statism?

Originally Posted by ynvaser

Do you even have to ask that question? The police is there to keep you in line, which is a state maintained body.

I see answering questions with questions is a strong point here.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

And how effective is that? Is order always maintained? Are warlords unable to force their will on others? What exactly stops there being a police force in a stateless society?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I ask these questions to help you understand the current situation, to find out why you would ask such a question, and to help you arrive at a conclusion that you understand. It's generally better than me making guesses about why you think something, and then telling you what you should think.

Originally Posted by ynvaser

Quite effective where the state itself is strong.
There can't be a police force without a state, there'd be nothing to keep it in check. Division of powers.

Originally Posted by ynvaser

I'm asking for your opinion, I'm not clueless in the topic.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

You know USA utilizes private police, right?

Why can't there be a police force without a state?

Originally Posted by ynvaser

There can't be a police force without a state, there'd be nothing to keep it in check. Division of powers.

Originally Posted by ynvaser

I don't really consider the US to be a model state for anything. If you want to maintain a healthy democracy, you have to separate the legislature, executive and judiciary branches of power while allowing these branches to keep each other in check.
Allowing private individuals or corporations to maintain a police force is just plain ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ynvaser

Do i have to repeat myself? The police is there to uphold the law. What is there to uphold if there's no state to make laws?

Originally Posted by ynvaser

What is there to stop the police from becoming corrupt, and just becoming a proto-state in itself?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Regardless as to whether it's a model state or not, it's a state.

If something already exists then it's hard to take an argument that it's impossible seriously, you know?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

The state isn't the only body that can create rules. For example when you go to work at your job, surely you have rules? When you were a kid and went to school or university surely they had rules? When you were a kid living at home surely your parents had some kind of rules? Explain to me why the state is the only body who can make rules, please.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

And what exactly about states makes police immune to corruption?

Your objections are nothing to do with stateless vs state. I hope you can see that the problems you have with statelessness apply equally to states, therefore they are not legitimate objections.

Originally Posted by ynvaser

Never said it's impossible. I said it's stupid. People are loyal to their paychecks, and police shouldn't be subject to some individual's agendas.

Originally Posted by ynvaser

Who makes the rules in anarchy? Who would force me to adhere to these rules, and if you answer "the police" who would decide what rules the police has to uphold? Who alters these rules once they are deemed obsolete?

Originally Posted by ynvaser

You misinterpret what I'm saying yet again (it's easy to contradict everything I'm saying if you don't bother thinking through what I'm saying in the first place).
There's a difference between becoming corrupt by not adhering to society's rules, and becoming corrupt because there are no rules to adhere to. They are legitimate objections against anarchism, but I don't see you making a single point on why anarchism would function without bodies that are state-bound by nature.