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...