Bill O'Reilly: Anarchist?

[skip to the 4 minute mark]

Bill O'Reilly: The whole federal government frightens me. There isn't anything about it I like.

Jon Stewart: Really?

Bill O'Reilly: Yeah, I'm an anarchist. Power to the people.

O'Reilly was against anarchy before he was for it.

Share this

Maybe O'Reilly and Ayers can

Maybe O'Reilly and Ayers can finally get together and have a beer. Until then, this was a waste of space. How can anyone take anybody on the MSM seriously? especially when they are on Comedy Central talking to the mental equivalent of a June bug.

Ayers is a would-be murderer

Ayers consciously wanted to murder people in order to effect change. That makes him different from 99.9% of everyone else. Sure, you can accuse O'Reilly of supporting murderous policies, but so does everyone who voted- by voting. If you want to get voters off the hook because they picked a lesser evil, then please extend the same coutesy to pundits.

Nobody is off the hook. I am

Nobody is off the hook. I am not in the business of absolving responsibility.

O'Reilly reads like a good guy

Read the linked old article. O'Reilly just wants criminals deported and wants law abiding illegals to remain. He says so right there, so no, he's actually not here thinking of illegal entry as criminal. He makes the distinction. O'Reilly is against anarchy as in chaos. So am I and so are you. Chaos is a totally different definition of anarchy from the one anarcho-capitalists advocate. I'm actually shocked. I had no idea O'Reilly was on the side of the angels. I only know about him by reputation and the very occasional YouTube clip cherrypicked by leftists.

I Had No Idea

He is 6'4", or that Stewart is just 5'7". Hard to get a read on folks who are mostly shown seated.

Bill, oh Bill...

We shouldn't take his comments seriously.

By the way... does anybody here believe in anarchy in this sense:

1. a state of society without government or law.
(dictionary.com)

If you do, I think it's time we had a little talk.

Out of Boredom

I'll bite.

I believe in a state of society without government, which is to say I believe such a society has a serious chance of stability and attractive features.

Attractive Features

Explain these attractive features.

Before I continue I want to make sure you're saying what I think you're saying. I'm sure many interesting things could come from the state of anarchy I referenced, but you're suggesting zero law and zero government would be beneficial, correct?

I'd recommend both you and

I'd recommend both you and Scott define what you each mean by "government" and "law" before either of you go any further, or otherwise risk talking past each other.

Good point

Agreed. I suggested as much below and read your response later. I think that's kind of funny actually.

The term "law" could be tied-in to Government in some peoples minds. With me, it's not. This could get really hairy though...

does anybody here believe in

does anybody here believe in anarchy in this sense:

1. a state of society without government or law.

Why yes, yes I do.

Government and law provide no true service to the people. It has become the path of least resistance for us to lose what little we have left, like Athenians of old. Politicians and judges have become ensconced and enthroned in these marble palaces of stolen loot, modern day monuments to thievery.

The denizens of these places so concealed from the peasants, they hide themselves in the sheep cloth of democracy and representative government; these same slackwit populists, they are nothing if not statist demagogues who replace morals with nothing (as opposed to replacing it with logic) and feign principle as part of the "political game".

Don't get me wrong, John Q. Everyman also has his comeuppance rapidly approaching like an acme anvil.

You don't need to take anarchy on faith. It just happens.

Examples

No true service to the people eh? I'm afraid not (I think). I'm at work right now, but I'll respond in time. I can say I can appreciate the poetic gestures of your explanatory approach, but we're going to need some history, facts and examples in this conversation, if it is to go beyond a form of fantasy ideals.

Maybe you have a definition of "true" which differs from mine. But if by "true" you mean a beneficial service, with its service(s) measured against the absence of those service(s), over time, then yes, we're on the same page.

There are countless examples from our history which would have a hard time agreeing with you. But the strongest argument I can think of right now (and it's very weak) that may bring some light on over to your side, is that this zero law and zero government vision hasn't really had its time to evolve and prosper, so that we can see and observe its true virtues in modern societies. But even before this could possibly happen, you would see mass murder on scales you could not even imagine, and after that it's just one big messy question mark.

Morals are very complicated to explain because they have so many reasons for existing, unlike an eye for example. Tribal loyalty, love of kin etc. ...even the evolution of cooperation has made an impression on our morals in some form or another (that should interest you). Either way, much of our morals has come from an "us vs. them" approach but has morphed ever so slightly to be meshed in with selfless acts of grandeur. By the way, I believe it's pretty much a fact that at its root, our morals and what makes us moral creatures is PURELY biological, and that biology has had time to evolve and change over time. Of course our social lives and societies can play a part in our behavior as well, but you don't feel bad when a baby seal gets clubbed because your mom told you to, but you may believe in Jesus Christ - the only son of GOD - because she told you to :). doh! Catch the nuance there?

I guess before I start can we get a few success stories from history of ZERO law and ZERO government, combined? Obviously these are numerous in a time where government simply did not exist, but I simply have not read about the positives, especially if it were to happen now. Enlighten me. We have to look at the big picture. A few scattering of tribes that got along, isn't what I'm looking for.

If that doesn't work, we'll have to read the reasoned "ifs" of our future, and why you think this anarchy is a benefit. You may think it to be a sound logical and reasoned theory, but in the end, it all falls down to the level of interesting conversation. doh!

Also of note is that violence has gone down. I know it doesn't seem like it but we're living in Heaven compared to the societies of old. I don't have the stats on hand, but the chances you would be murderer by another male is much greater X amount of years ago.

So is this FOR our tried and true laws, or is this against it, because it shows our societies are getting more civil? Talk to me man, talk to me!

We have anarchy tomorrow. No government. No law. Tell me in what year I should start to celebrate?

If you still have anything to say, I will be back in a week.

is that this zero law and zero government vision hasn't really had its time to evolve and prosper, so that we can see and observe its true virtues in modern societies.

Nope, wrong. Try the old west, third quarter of the nineteenth century. You remember the murderers of the west because there had been so few (which made them famous), where as on the east coast at the same time, they had far more murders.

For instance; in the third quarter of the 19th century in New Bedford, Mass. they suffered 140 murders in 10 years and a proportionate number of other violent crimes. In Leadville, CO. by comparison, a town of similar size and composition, they had exactly zero murders.

To the people living in the 1800's, it was pretty damned modern to them.

I wont speak to virtues or morals.

If you need more examples and my citations, pick up this book and break out the ancient census data.

Morals are very complicated to explain...

Don't bother, I have no need for them. Thinking about baby seals getting clubbed made me smile briefly.

I guess before I start can we get a few success stories from history of ZERO law and ZERO government, combined?

I already did that. Now how about you provide us with government success stories that don't involve murder or theft...

...and why you think this anarchy is a benefit.

It removes pretense and the parasite class. It (anarchy) not only encourages but demands personal responsibility and eternal vigilance. Most people don't like that, but they really don't have a choice since all empires collapse eventually.

Also of note is that violence has gone down.

If that is how you justify government and law, you must have been ignoring the last 6 months worth of news out of Tijuana, Mexico.

but the chances you would be murderer by another male is much greater X amount of years ago

Murder rate is mostly tied to population density and ethnicity, not government or laws. You can check those numbers from Amnesty international. Find the link yourself, I'm going on vacation tomorrow morning and I don't feel like spending more time here correcting your assumptions.

...because it shows our societies are getting more civil?

Not if you check the historical per capita murder and violent crime rate around the world.

We have anarchy tomorrow. No government. No law. Tell me in what year I should start to celebrate?

You should celebrate every breath you take without the chains of slavery about you. In my opinion.

Before you respond:
Read the book before you refute the authors claims. Until then, best to mosey along down the dusty trail. Adios.

St Elmo, please don't hurt mommies feelings

Let's start from the end, because god I love it when a clown puts his nose to the air.

Until then, best to mosey along down the dusty trail. Adios.

Oh really. Is that the best for me oh Lord Elmo?

If you need more examples and my citations, pick up this book and break out the ancient census data.

Define "ancient" census data.

I already did that. Now how about you provide us with government success stories that don't involve murder or theft.

Are you kidding? You can't just ask the impossible, and then expect the impossible. Rephrase your question to make sense St. Elmo.

If that is how you justify government and law, you must have been ignoring the last 6 months worth of news out of Tijuana, Mexico.

Why don't you ask me if that's how I justify government and law, before you tell me what I ignore in your crystal ball St. Elmo. Violence has gone down, world wide, that's just a fact. Did you disagree?

I'm going on vacation tomorrow morning and I don't feel like spending more time here correcting your assumptions.

No, actually I'm correcting yours.

Not if you check the historical per capita murder and violent crime rate around the world.

Expand on this please.

You should celebrate every breath you take without the chains of slavery about you. In my opinion.

I celebrate every breath regardless.

P.S

If you're going to pick on a noob, do it with style! Christ sakes... my palsied granny can do better than this. Please try again, when you get back from the swinger fair. Okay?

Oh really. Is that the best

Oh really. Is that the best for me oh Lord Elmo?

Nope, it was best for me, that is why I mosey'd along for a few days.

Define "ancient" census data.

The link was to the 1880 census. Anything older than 10 years, I lightly state is ancient. I really don't take the internet too seriously and was merely being playful with my language.

Are you kidding? You can't just ask the impossible...

Yes, I can.

Why don't you ask me if that's how I justify government and law, ...

Because your English is clear, I did not require you to elaborate. Sure, violence may be down in Peoria but wars and drug violence are on the rise globally.

No, actually I'm correcting yours.

No, actually you have said nothing of any value to defend government or law. You can pretend that I am attacking you or your defense all you want, but i'm not. I am still waiting for your rejoinder.

Expand on this please.

Why? you wont expand on anything I ask you about, so why should I be the better man again? I and others have given great examples, yet here you are asking for more without ingesting the previous.

This reminds me of my 15 month old daughter and her animal cracker addiction.

If you're going to pick on a noob, do it with style! Christ sakes... my palsied granny can do better than this. Please try again, when you get back from the swinger fair. Okay?

Thats probably because nothing I said was ad hominem. I am not here to "pick on noobs", despite what you may be projecting.

If you fill your response with more lies and personal attacks, I can do nothing other than ignore your further comments with regards to this topic.

I will give you a few days before I check for a response.

Ah yes

Okay from the top:

No, actually you have said nothing of any value to defend government or law.

1. I am not trying to defend Government, merely trying to figure it out at this point.

2. I was going to talk about why I believe a society without laws is simply not possible. I got sidetracked.

Have I offered up nothing? Maybe. I haven't really gotten started though. My interest is seriously waning at this point. It's okay if you don't agree with me, that's fine. I don't feel the need to change anyone's opinion.

I'm trying to learn, and in so doing giving my opinion. I have not suggested anything about Government, just trying to grasp what people are calling a Government, and what they are not calling one. That is all, in regards to that.

Once I offer my plea for a lawless society, we open up a can of worms and at the end of the day, it'll be someone elses stats vs my stats. The integrity of our data will just lead to a stalemate, and that will be that. With all the trouble, I honestly believe it'll just end that way. And good god, I would have to go through a shit ton of trouble... and it may have to be started with my first "serious" post if I ever get around to it.

I'll move on down the list.

I really don't take the internet too seriously and was merely being playful with my language.

That is all I was doing as well. You may not meet a more cynical person (especially in person), but I've been debating peeps for almost a decade on content totally unrelated to anything here, and you will be the first "ignore" that I know of. I don't know though, I may have scared a few peeps here already.

I joined this site to learn about content I don't know about. If I knew about all this, I wouldn't even have peeped, joined and started having some iota of conversation with people more versed than I, especially in regards to Government and Law.

I think it was a few "Constant" comments from back in the day, about property which initially turned me on to this site. From what I remember, he was owning people left and right.

But if you want to tell me how a lawless society would work... I'm all eyes.

Amazing:
http://www.vidmax.com/video/7383/Full_grow...r_than_you_can/

Without government, yes

Without government, yes. Without law, no.

The crux

Yes well, isn't that interesting?

Maybe Government needs a new definition.

Since when has "self evidence" taken on such a roll, as to account for everything.

Zero law? People will devise organization no matter what, and much of that organization will come from laws. Give them a new name... but they're still "laws". Maybe "rules"? Maybe "standards" Maybe "contracts"? Maybe "terms and conditions"? Who knows... The bottom line is that organization will perpetuate, and even if a "Government" as we know it now, may not be enforcing these things along... something will be, which has a similar function.

Lawlessness (and its many offshoots) and the expectation thereof is logically incomprehensible to me.

We really have to play semantics with terms to really nail this. I think a working definition of "Government" and "Law" is in order before this goes any further.

Law versus government

A law is a rule of behavior rightly enforceable by violence. A government is a specific group of people who, as a group, enjoy a monopoly of overwhelming power. If a government breaks a law, then there is no one who can bring the government to justice. The government is, therefore, uniquely positioned to commit the greatest crimes that humanity has ever known. Moreover, the government has the capacity to enforce its arbitrary decrees, calling them "laws".

Law no more needs government to exist and be enforced, than does language or etiquette. If you put a gun to someone's head you can get them to speak any way you like, but they would still speak without a gun to their head, and their speech would be tightly rule-governed, by the rules of the English language. The only "problem" would be that they would not be following your rules. Similarly, government can get us to follow its commands, calling those commands "law", but even if government were not there, our behavior would be rule-governed.

The idea that law as such requires government to enforce it is one of the greatest scams in history.

Brainstorm

This is def not my area of expertise, so I'll brainstorm.

We know Governments are organized in many ways, but I wonder if you cherry picked a rather cynical view as the definition of Government(s).

1. A law is a rule of behavior rightly enforceable by violence.

Who and what decides if a rule is rightly enforceable by violence? Who created the rule.

2. A government is a specific group of people who, as a group, enjoy a monopoly of overwhelming power.

That's the point, isn't it? The power has to go somewhere. You can either choose one or many. Pushed to extremes, I see horrors in both ways.

The only "problem" would be that they would not be following your rules.

Depends.

The idea that law as such requires government to enforce it is one of the greatest scams in history.

What does a rule or law need to enforce it if it requires more than one or many? This starts to get very complicated, with a melting pot of examples. Is it just some simple process of shoot person A in the head because they broke your rules?

Summary:
Who creates the rules and how (over whom)?
Once these rules are established they are enforced by violence (seems very simplistic to me)
Who does the violence, if say, they cannot be enforced by one or many?

You seem to agree

You write:

I wonder if you cherry picked a rather cynical view as the definition of Government(s).

but when we come to my actual definition you write:

That's the point, isn't it?

Looks like agreement to me.

I'm not going to give you an explanation of anarcho-capitalism in a comment - or anywhere else for that matter. That requires a book, and a few books on this have been written. David D. Friedman wrote one of the better books on this topic, called The Machinery of Freedom. He has webbed some of it. But this bit I think addresses some of the common worries about law in anarchy.

Correction: that wasn't your

Correction: that wasn't your definition. Your definition was a lengthy paragraph.

There is also something to be said about the kind of agreement we found, but it seems interest is waning at this point. Let me just say we should be looking for agreement on value based judgments, not circumstances, in the context of the particular point of interest.

Also... yeah, don't waste your time. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

That was my definition

The lengthy paragraph was commentary, not definition. The definition was exactly the bit that you quoted and replied to by "that's the point".

Okay.

Okay.

David Friedman

Okay I've read some of DFs blogs. Interesting that his son posts here. David might as well, who is he?

If you're a Pinker fan...

...here's a post on the topic quoting Pinker.

Ahh yes

That is in Dawkins' book as well.

I've seen geniuses debate all day about how he could possibly assume that place was peaceful to begin with.

I like Pinker, but I don't ride peoples nuts. I did enjoy "The Blank Slate", and would suggest everybody read it. Even if they disagree with his conclusions in other areas.

I Believe in That Kind of Anarchy

"By the way... does anybody here believe in anarchy in this sense: 1. a state of society without government or law."

Sure, Somalia being an example. I also believe in Marxism, Pol Pot's Cambodia being an example.

Okay, but I didn't mean the

Okay, but I didn't mean the existence of such a state of anarchy. The belief that we should strive for that state. Agreement with the "model" if you will.

Good post, and a nice

Good post, and a nice summary and clearing up of some of the confusion that could happen during these kinds of talks.

But, there will be no lawless society. Ever. That is my bottom line.

Violence

Violence may need to be talked about too. What qualifies as violence. Escorting? Jailing? etc.

Defining violence

It's possible to pick different definitions of violence and get pretty much the same practical result. For example, if someone is in jail, part of what keeps him there is the threat of violence if he attempts to escape (e.g. guard towers). And that - violence or the threat of it - is also likely part of how his jailer managed to put him there to begin with. So whether you include or exclude jailing as violence per se, violence is probably involved in jailing, however you end up defining it.

Because of this, I don't think we have to be all that worried about exactly how we define violence. For convenience we might define violence as harm to the body. Someone who pulls a knife or gun on you is threatening to harm your body and therefore threatening violence. If you want a definition of what it means to harm the body, we can define it as a disruption of the biological processes that make up the body - for example, bruising you, breaking your skin, or choking you. We should also add that it must be intentional, to distinguish it from an accident.

In society we avoid committing violence against each other outside of (what we hope to be) highly exceptional circumstances. If the other person has initiated violence against us, then we are much more likely to respond with violence than we had been (before the attack) to initiate violence ourselves.

But, there will be no

But, there will be no lawless society. Ever. That is my bottom line.

You really haven't done anything to convince us of that. You admit yourself that this is your weak subject.

Check out the books that have been recommended, at the very least it is a good read and at best it might provide you some food for thought.

Yadda Yadda

I'm telling you my opinion. Much of this opinion comes from topics unrelated to the ones being discussed, but they all kind of come together at a common meeting point in the end.

The nature of man/woman. Historical perspectives (excluding the crap I don't know). What works and what hasn't worked. Biology and the human brain. Psychology and the evolution of that psychology etc. etc. until it gets boring...

Then I noticed the peeps are coming at this from an entirely different angle, and I got interested in this Swiss Cheese in which you call Government. The definitions that don't hold up to the standards (until I read a book perhaps). So I asked questions... then got pointed to books.

No rules, no laws... it WORKS! Here, this is why... and then crickets. The burden of proof is on everybody, including me. I wanted to have a little talk. We had a little talk. Now I'm not convinced, you're not convinced and I guess we just point at books until it works or we all get bored. Is that it? I lost interest immediately in this discussion after that happens. So I don't see myself going any further at this point.

The Government and Law information was interesting. I haven't really dabbled in those areas, but I can still come to confident conclusions on a lawless society from other areas of interest and knowledge. Which is why I typed out a few hasty things from work.

And yes, when I don't know something I have no problem admitting that. Which is why I usually get involved. Yapping at peeps, sorting out your thoughts and then communicating them, rivals book reading.

And seriously, stop using the word "us". Good god. I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't believe in a lawless society, despite the nature and title/heading of the old site.

New reply to your egotistical bombast coming next, sweet elmo.

Pinker and the decline of Violence

If this has been posted before, forgive me.

Quickly... I want to point out some commentary on violence and the decline of violence. "Violence" and "decline" can be situated in many ways, and mean so many things.

Obviously it's not the topic of this blog, but it has come up and I think it's a good read. Obviously, I welcome all feedback on his position.

See below:

This doctrine, "the idea that humans are peaceable by nature and corrupted by modern institutions—pops up frequently in the writing of public intellectuals like José Ortega y Gasset ("War is not an instinct but an invention"), Stephen Jay Gould ("Homo sapiens is not an evil or destructive species"), and Ashley Montagu ("Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood")," he writes. "But, now that social scientists have started to count bodies in different historical periods, they have discovered that the romantic theory gets it backward: Far from causing us to become more violent, something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler."

Linky did not work. So...

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

Maybe a little later if this isn't too played out, and St. Elmos Fire comes back and goes Penile on me, we could then discuss morals, and what they mean, and why they matter as it pertains to a lawless society or people.

I hate to use the word "morals", but defined correctly (correctly relative to the discussion maybe), it should have consideration when talking about a populace that is void of laws. Or doesn't it?

That may all come later, or we might all be bored by then by this topic or by me. Personally I vote me.

Edit:

The problem with the emotions is not that they are untamed forces or vestiges of our animal past; it is that they were designed to propagate copies of the genes that built them rather than to promote happiness, wisdom, or moral values.