The Beautiful Anarchy of Basketball

Playing basketball at the park is was one of my favorite things to do as a teen and young adult.  It's a great way to get exercise and fresh air while having fun and making new friends, and being competitive.  Never in my life did I think I would want to write a blog post about the mechanics of a game of ball but here we are.  In the following I will describe the decision making process for each aspect of a game of basketball at a park.

1. The first decision to make on a basketball court is what kind of game you are going to play.  The most popular games are "21" or evenly divided teams.  This decision is subliminally made based on the ages and number of people playing.  If only 3 people are present at the court, most likely the game is going to be "21."  Evenly divided teams are not selected usually unless there are at least 6 players willing to participate.  This decision can be made very fast: someone, anyone, on the court will say "let's shoot up a game of 21" or "let's shoot teams."

2. After the kind of game to play is chosen, the players have to pick a ball to play with, as there are likely several different ones to choose from.  Players will take a vote by passing the ball to each other for inspection.  The ball with the best grip, best size, and that bounces best usually gets picked.  The decision does not have to be unanimous, but when there's the general feeling that most people want a certain ball, that becomes the chosen ball. 

3. If the players decide to play 21, the player nearest the free-throw line sets himself up to shoot while the other players gather under the rim waiting for a rebound.  Nobody directs players exactly where to stand, everyone finds an empty space that is reasonable in distance from other players and the rim.  None of the players under the rim try to gain advantage for a rebound until the moment the ball leaves the shooter's hands.  There are no official rules in this game, however, the expected norms still apply.  Participants are still expected to dribble the ball when moving and nobody punches or trips or shoves the ball handler on purpose to steal the ball.

4. If players elect to play a game with evenly divided teams, the first decision is to pick teams.  Since players often don't know each other, what happens is they line up and take turns shooting from the free-throw line.  If there are a total of 6 playing, the first 3 to make the shot will be on a team.  Sometimes the same thing is done, only the first 2 to make the shot become "captains", and they take turns picking teams.  Once teams are picked, the have to decide whether to play full court or half court basketball.  This will depend on how many people are playing; if there are 10 players then full court will probably be the way to go, but with only 6 the game will likely be played on one half of the court. 

5. Who gets the ball first in a team game?  This one is easy.  To get the game started, almost always a player from either team will grab the ball and shoot from the 3-point-line and call out "this is for ball."  If he makes the shot, his team gets the ball first.  If he misses, the other team gets the ball first. 

6.  Let's say during game-play there is a dispute over whether or not a rule of basketball was broken.  Other players on the court who witnessed the event will chime in.  Even players on the offender's team... because everyone on an instinctual wants an honest victory.  Nobody wants to win over a cheap call.  But what happens when both sides are truly divided over a play?  Again, easy.  A player will take a shot from the 3 point line "for the ball" or they will simply restart the play in question.  Usually a shot is taken only if the decision would change which team gets the ball.

7.  If new players arrive during game play, how is it organized?  The new players will wait patiently aside the court.  When the game is over, they will say "I have next" and choose players from the losing team.  The winning team has "earned the right to remain on the court by winning."  It's true, some teams dominate the basketball court all afternoon, but everyone recognizes it would not be fair to them to have to quit playing just because they are good. 

8.  How to choose a victor.  Games at public courts do not come with timers, so what happens is the players decide on a point number to play to.  Sometimes it's 11, sometimes 11 win by 2, sometimes it's 21, sometimes it's 21 win by 2, sometimes it's 21 with 7 point whitewash (meaning the game is over if either team goes up 7-0), sometimes it's 15 or 13... the general sweet-spot is between 11 and 21; lower scores are reserved for games that appear to be lop-sided, that is, where the best players are on one side and the not so good players on the other, in order to keep from dragging out the game unnecessarily. 

The things that happen on public basketball courts can be very complex.  Since it is after all just a game, disputes are resolved quickly and grudges are rarely held...  the point in all this is, I have never in my life seen or played in a game at a park where players even chose someone as a referee, let alone sit at a table in order to attempt to plan out actions for every conceivable circumstance.  It would literally take all day and night to do that and not a single game would be played.  Instead, resolutions are decided on the fly.  Of course it's not always perfect, but unless you get hurt, you usually go home happy to have gotten to the park and played some ball.  Even in games like 21, where the defining feature of the game is there are no official rules, norms like dribbling are still expected to be followed. 

Also, again, this is just a game of basketball... some days there are over 20 people at the court wanting to play... more than enough to play full court 5 on 5 ball, and still nobody wants even a referee just to keep the game going.  This is a blog about anarchy as well so I have to ask the reader: if 20 people have a shared admission that nothing will get done if decisions and conflicts are not resolved in a timely manner to the point that they forgo even having a referee, and decide to ref the game themselves, how can a few hundred people think they can effectively plan out society with even more complexity as well as more precision?

An anarchist's position on the rights of children and animals

On a recent podcast, Tom Woods challenged his audience to put our position on the rights of animals and children into words.  I phrase it that way because almost every libertarian/anarchist I have met instinctually knows that respecting children and animals IS part of who we are, but finds it difficult to work their rights within the framework of the NAP.

The argument is essentially that parents and let owners are under no obligation under the NAP to provide for their dependents.  I know of two ways in which we can overcome this hurdle.  The first revolves around social contract whereas the second drives at the very heart of libertarian values.  Naturally, I will start with the former.

Social Contract theory of child rearing and pet owning:
     If you're new to libertarianism, chances are you are not a fan of the theory of social contracts.  I get it; you think if you concede that social contracts exist then all hope is lost and you will be obligated to accept the state.  This is wrong of course.  The most basic of all social contracts basically states "you don't hurt me, i won't hurt you."  Even statists would agree to this one, it's so simple.  As it applies to children and animals... Well, if you as an adult choose to bear children, the social contract is: i chose to have a child.  I know children cannot provide for themselves, therefore, i am agreeing to provide for this child.  This would make any negligence in parental duties a coercive act against a child, as you are not holding up to your end of the contract. (I say "your end" but since the child in question either doesn't exist or is a bit young for contracts, there is only one end so far).  The same can be said for owning a pet.  By freely choosing to have an animal in your home, you are agreeing to fulfill the pet's needs.

Now to the main argument.  I'm gonna say something here that I have yet to hear another libertarian say.  Unless i saw or read this argument somewhere and forgot, I do believe I have worked this out through my own process.

Libertarianism revolves everything around property rights... But what we need to recognize is that using property rights as the basis for our arguments is merely a tool for communicating a much larger idea.  The heart of Libertarianism is not property rights; the heart is a LOVE for LIFE.

We want our rights over the things we own and we argue that we own our bodies so that we can LIVE!  Everything you have ever owned, you customized to fit your needs; to live your life as you see fit.  Your car has your radio stations programmed, your seat is where you like it, your mirrors are setup for you to see...  The fans in your home are where you want them...  And when people take your things or come tell you the new standard for your property, what they are doing is erasing that part of your personality...  They are interfering with your right to live your life as you wish.  How does this apply to children and animals?  Come on... The heart of what we believe in is a love of LIFE.  Children are brand new to life; it is 100% impossible to love life and allow a child to starve for no apparent reason.  In a libertarian society, if you had children and mistreated them and didn't feed them, maybe someone or some group would come remove that child from your custody.  The purpose of property is life, that is why we cherish it so much.  Any person capable of starving a child has no love for life.

The same can be said for animals.  We care about them and don't want to harm them unless we have to because they are living beings...

14 Hard Questions for Statists.

Since statists, here defined as those who believe a State (monopoly of violence or a government) have posed a list of 14 questions to libertarians, I feel it prudent to return the favor.  Here is a list of 14 tough questions for anyone who believes governments are legit.

14.  If governments are legit, why do they have to force people to comply with their laws?

13.  How can someone you have never met accurately "represent" you?

12.  If governments rule only through the consent of the governed, how do you explain such low approval ratings?

11.  If people have no right to use force against each other, how did they delegate this power to politicians?

10.  If it is protection from people who want to do us harm that we seek,  why are governments defended? as it is governments who go to war, attempt genocide, develop nuclear weapons, and consider innocent deaths an acceptable circumstance to war, lock people up who haven't harmed anyone, etc?

9.  If we need protection from monopolies forming in our economy, as monopolists get out of control and abuse their power, why should we want a monopoly on violence?

8.  If theft, killing, kidnappings, extortion, and so on are completely immoral, why should it be legal for anyone to do it?

7.  If government economic programs are really wanted by people, why does it have to be a matter of law? Why don't politicians take their ideas to the market to test whether or not people are willing to buy what they are selling?

6.  Isn't the thought of the government as a necessary evil the same as saying evil is necessary?  And if evil is necessary, are we not saying the absence of evil would be a bad thing?

5.  If governments are formed to protect rights, does it not follow that rules precede governments, as well as rights, and we can have both rules and rights without governments?

4.  When statists discuss the possibility of a legit war, it is in the context of a government defending people from another government; does this not mean it is still the existence of governments that is responsible for starting wars?

5.  The United States Government is made up of a few hundred people; where do they get the information they need to effectively control hundreds of millions of people? 

4.  Every time you walk by a store and refuse to go in, or you go in and refuse to buy an item, an economic decision has been made.  How can such a small group of people account for these kinds of decisions made by hundreds of millions of people?

3.  An anarchist would not stop anyone from giving money or following who they wish; why do statists insist anyone who refuses to give money to the people they wish to follow should be thrown in jail?

2.  If all politicians are human beings, and no human being has the right to use force against another, why does calling it law change the morality of what is being done?

1.  If murder and theft and the like are truly immoral, why should we want a society based on such actions?

Questions or comments, feel free to discuss!

Common Sense

Common Sense is a phrase that gets thrown around daily, usually by people who are annoyed with other people.  It is something that everyone is expected to have in order to make rational judgments about every day situations.  For example, if it is cold outside, it only takes a shred of common sense to know you will need a coat to keep warm.  If you are thirsty, the idea of getting a drink quickly comes to mind.  But what exactly is common sense?

According to dictionary.com, common sense is defined as:

 Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.

For our purposes, we will define common sense as "judgment based on every day experiences."

The problem here is not hard to spot... in fact, anyone with common sense could do it.  Every day experiences differ from person to person, although we do share the same struggle living in a world based on scarcity, weather, and so on.  So what differences do people have which would actually cause problems?  Here a few that I can think of.

1.  Some people are religious, some are not.

2.  Some people are disciplined differently than others as children.

3.  Value ratings often change from person to person.

Religion.  Suppose two people were considering walking into a Casino to gamble.  A religious person may say "no, duh, God hates gambling so I'm not going in there."  whereas a non-religious, or atheist, may say something like "what harm can come from gambling, as long as you control yourself."  

Both people in this scenario are applying what they view as common sense and each has arrived at a different conclusion.

How about people who were disciplined differently as children?  As parents they may say something like "if your child gets out of control, threaten or issue a spanken, that'll straighten them right out."  However, someone who was not spanked may say something like "I wonder why _____ is acting up.  If I spank, it will increase the overall amount of aggression _____ is used to and may actually cause more aggression."  Again, both people applying common sense.

Value Ratings:  This is the most essential, fundamental difference in humanity.  Without differences in how things are valued, there would be no economy and no civilization.  If I am extremely thirsty, I may pay $5.00 for a bottle of water at a movie theater.  That may be common sense to me at the time, even if I do feel a bit ripped off.  However, the owner of the movie theater may say "Oh my god, these people are paying through the nose for this stuff!"

So what does all this say about common sense?  First, common sense, as defined above, does not exist.  It is just another way of saying bias.  Before it was discovered that the Earth was round, religion, along with a bit of common sense, determined it was flat.  For the religious text said the earth is flat and that is the way our interactions with the world appear at first, especially when there are not cars, planes, trains, satellites, etc.  

When I first became a parent, I asked a few people for advice...  What I basically heard was "use common sense."  If you guessed that I asked a family member, you are correct!  All this meant was "apply our family values/biases to your parenting."  I know this because I have broken with some of those biases and have been ridiculed for it.  

I am doing my best to parent peacefully because I believe it is scientifically and morally correct.  Scientifically, aggressive parenting pushes the kid into fight or flight and interferes with the ability to reason, and in the end creates robots out of human flesh... but peaceful parenting allows freedom for kids to be themselves, does NOT hamper the ability to reason and does not teach aggression.  But this information did not come to me from "common sense", it came from various people spreading the peaceful parenting message and the science behind it.  In other words, those with specialized knowledge.

How often to we find that specialized knowledge trumps biases?  The Earth is round, not flat.  The God of War did not start that war, your leaders, or their's, did.  When two people make an exchange in goods and services, it is because each values that which they gain more than that which they give up, not because one is necessarily a moron and the other brilliant.  Governments can commit crimes too (Nuremberg).  Cutting a sick person so they can bleed out their infection is dangerous!  Racism, well, do we need to go there?  The idea that a person is good or bad based on their skin color is common sense to a small percentage of people... and the depth of their cognitive dissonance is evidence in how strong these biases are.

So what do we do about biases?  We introduce philosophy.  We challenge our biases.  Some will take longer than others.  Do I really need a coat to be warm is a question that should take about 5 seconds in the right conditions.  Is spanking good or bad for kids?  That is one that should be visited by everyone, regardless of what your bias makes you lean towards.  We go to people with specialized knowledge and find out, we acquire our own knowledge and study the methods of gaining knowledge, called epistemology....  To me, this is what education is, particularly in a world where information is instantaneously delivered to our screens.  Educate ourselves in logic, and so on...  

Who in their right mind hires someone for a job and says "eh, just use common sense."  NOBODY.  I work at a Casino since I started, have gained quite a bit of knowledge in Table Games.  Someone without any knowledge may see two hands:  2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for one and 6, J, Q, K A as the other.  Someone who does not understand hand rankings, applying common sense, may guess that the second hand wins because of the Ace... not seeing the pattern of the straight in the first hand.  

My first job was as a bus-boy a friend got me at his family's restaurant.  That is a pretty simple job.  People come in and eat, and when they leave, you clean and reset the table.  Still nobody said to just go out there and apply common sense.  Even then the dishes had to be set a certain way for the washing machine to work properly, my customer relations skills had to be tested, etc.

If we define common sense as an ability to learn and use reason to be a functional member of society, parent, etc. then all we are doing is re-defining the term to mean someone who knows their limitations and acquires necessary knowledge to be effective at whatever task they are to perform, which is a way of saying philosophy. 

Granted, we may not look at what experts are saying about every detail of everything we do, but in that case, we have to be ready to be wrong on some points.  I am at a loss on how to sew a pair of boxers.  I did it once in high school and the end product came out as something, idk what it was...  I probably used a little too much common sense and failed to gain enough specialized knowledge though.  See the issue I am bringing up here?

Against the phrase 'anarco-capitalism'

Before you leave a comment saying my argument is purely semantic, please reread the title of this post.  The nature is semantics, but I do believe the argument is one worth writing about.

First, let's define our terms.

Anarchy~  a state of disorder due to lack of authority;
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual.

•  I think most people agree on the basic idea "absence of government"

Capitalism~ private ownership of the means of production for profit.

• in my experience when people think of capitalism they think of business.

The business aspect is what troubles me.  When anarco-capitalists use the phrase, so far as I can tell, what they are getting at is the non aggression principle.  I know this because whenever I myself am confronted with the obvious questions people ask about a free society, what will the poor do, I revert to answers involving community and charity. 

The definition and examples of charity need not be discussed here, basically, people give stuff or money to the poor with no expectation of anything in return.

Community is a little bit more tricky. I see community as organizations in which people participate based on location with no expectation of monetary compensation.  An example is a neighborhood watch program (minus the public police involvement of course). Or perhaps your neighbor goes on vacation and you collect their mail and keep an eye on their house while they are away. 

These two examples, community and charity, by definition are not capitalist ventures as there is no monetary expectation involved, yet we use both when we answer questions about how a free society could work.  For this reason, I believe the phrase anarco-capitalist should not be used by advocates of freedom.  Especially in today's world of wall street bankers using state power to rip everyone else off...  The term may do more harm than good when naming our views. 

As for me, I simply say anarchist or anarchy. The absence of "legitimate" coercion is really what we strive for.

Please comment and share your thoughts.

You may be propagandized if....

1)  You see 6 mafia-men jump a man and take his money, but when you see the police lock someone in a cage for not giving the government tax dollars, you identify the same victim as a criminal.

2)  You gloss over every piece of evidence that says maybe your government isn't the greatest thing in the world and dismiss it as anti-american propaganda.

3)  You see a counterfeiter get arrested and quickly say "good thing they caught that guy.  Counterfeiters reduce the value of my money by injecting more/fake money into the economy... But when the Federal Reserve creates new money out of thin air, you call it "good fiscal policy."

4)  You agree with absolutely everything government does.  Remember the pledge of allegiance?

5)  Facts found on the internet are true when they point to the idea that the U. S. Government is the greatest entity on earth, and when you see facts found on the internet that contradict that conclusion, you say "anyone can say anything on the internet"

6)  You think that graduating high school/college means you are educated, regardless of how much information you remembered and forgot, how many tests you guessed on, etc.

7)  You see the civilians who die in war as collateral damage instead of people who were murdered.

8)  You think of the nuclear bombs launched on Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a testament to the government's power rather than as a testament for the government's capacity and willingness to commit evil.

9)  You are glad to live in a first world capitalist economy, which outlasted communism in the cold war, and push for regulation of business, welfare projects, wage controls, central banking, etc.

10)  You identify moral rules as being universal, but when questioned about the government's violation of those rules, you bring up the effects and dismiss it.

11)  You see government as the solution to any social problem.

12)  You know what the president's golf score is, what he had for dinner, where he ate it... all or any one of these is fine.

13)  You refuse to believe that calling government a necessary evil is the same as saying evil is necessary.

14)  You say thank you when a police officer gives you a ticket or a judge decides to throw you in a cage.

15)  You cannot conceive of any way to build roads, enforce safety standards, or make sure our food is not rotten without the government.

16) you think capitalism means government giving money to businesses.

What makes a person ethical?

For most of my life I believed that if a person generally understood the difference between right and wrong, it meant that they were a moral person.  Maybe they did not see the actions they were taking as being immoral for some reason, but the people themselves had good intentions at heart.  The best example I can think of of this kind of person would have to be a supporter of say the war on drugs.

Drugs are completely destructive.  In  my opinion, people become addicted to them because fantasy is preferable to the reality of their lives.  The drug replaces the pain of reality with the pleasure of fantasy.  It erodes the need for the people to take actions which would make their lives better.  Sometimes life changes that are necessary for a person's true happiness can be difficult and perhaps be seen as completely unobtainable; why not take x drug, by the way we are talking prescription or street-drugs, and do it that way?

So the drug warrior is looking at the situation saying "this is awful!  we need to get drugs off the street and out of our society."  Fine.  This is a goal that I believe in as well, though I do not consider myself a supporter of the war on drugs.  So "Hooray" for those cops fighting the good fight...

BUT

There is a problem with the drug war.  It involves coercing people who have not initiated force against other people.  Whenever force is used against someone that is not in the immediate defense of them-self or another person, that force is not justified.  Everyone gets this.  As a private citizen, I cannot "defend myself" against my neighbor when he is in his home smoking a joint.  His actions are not causing me harm.  The police, however, claim the moral obligation/right to knock down the door and drag that neighbor out of his house and throw him into a jail cell. 

So here we have a violation of principle; using force against someone in a circumstance other than defense, or simply aggressive force.  The use of aggressive force is being considered ok, only on the part of cops mind you, to get drugs off the streets. 

"Sure", the drug warrior will say, "it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but look at how harmful the drugs are!"

Yes, we all understand the point about the drugs.  What the drug warrior is not doing is putting the aggressive force under the same microscope.  He is accepting that which he considers evil (aggressive force) to eliminate that which he considers evil (drugs). 

This situation challenges my former theory that a person is ethical so long as they know the difference between right and wrong, for an ethical person cannot by definition accept evil as an acceptable methodology to solve problems. 


In hindsight, the person who knows right from wrong AND accepts an evil methodology is worse than the person who does not know.  At least the person who does not know has the potential for morality; the person who knowingly accepts evil has sealed their coffin. 

Sure, accepting evil methodologies in life can be revised and actions can change so as to reject evil methodologies, but as long as evil is accepted, I for one can no longer accept the proposition that knowledge is enough for morality.

Since we are saying knowledge is not enough and judging the drug warrior based on their actions, we must add a condition of action to what makes a person ethical.  The knowledge must be applied.

Note: I am not going to discuss the need for knowledge to determine if a person is ethical.  The need for knowledge is too obvious: accidentally doing the right thing is just that, an accident.

Knowledge includes moral principles.  Most people get this principle in Kindergarten.  Don't steal, don't hit, don't lie...  Libertarian circles simply call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).  The logic behind the NAP is very simple:  Man is a limited being.  Man does not have perfect knowledge, cannot be everywhere at once, and must choose what endeavors to pursue in his own life.  Man deals with reality the best he can.  Any person interfering with this reality in others blocks their ability to freely and openly live their lives.  If you steal from someone, you rob them of the choice to do what they wish with their own things.  If you lie to someone, you distort their perception of reality in order to trick them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do.  If you hit someone, you damage the vessel with which they live.  <---Disclaimer: Sometimes people prefer being lied to, sometimes people prefer being stolen from, and sometimes people want to be hit.  A boss at work may request that you leave out details of an event so they do not have to take a particular action.  A person addicted from heroin may plea with a friend to "please go into my house while I'm at work tomorrow and get all my 'stuff' out, so that if I want to do it, I won't be able to."  And a person who takes pleasure out of boxing may jump in the ring with another and spar.  These situations are sometimes tricky and each one must be treated as an individual case, as specifics vary, but generally, when someone WANTS to be hit, jumping into the ring and sparring does not constitute a violation of the NAP since they WANT it. 

The harder thing which knowledge includes sometimes is the perception that a certain action violates moral principles.  Most of the confusion here rests with government.  Government is the only entity in society which may tell people all over the country that they will "pay their taxes or get locked up in jail."  Yet many people miss this obvious violation of the NAP.  Indeed, any time the government passes a law, the message taken away is "Do x or you will be locked up in jail."  When x does not = a restraint from initiating aggressive force against other people, the government IS initiating aggressive force! 

Force can only be aggressive or defensive.  These two categories are not hard to see at all...  Sure, if you turn a corner of a building somewhere and see one person hitting another, it is true that you do not understand the context that warranted, or didn't warrant for that matter, the striking.  However, when someone clearly says to people "you will drive how I want you to drive or you will receive tickets from my agents, and if you don't pay those tickets you will eventually be thrown in jail" then the aggressive party is known. 

To summarize, what makes a person ethical is they must first have ethical standards.  Second, they must consciously try to live up to their ethical standards, and finally, if their attention is brought to the fact that they are doing something that does NOT live up to their ethical standards, they must abandon that action.