|
There are actually much better arguments against anarchy, or anarcho capitalism rather (or any "ideal" vision of anarchy), than you guys are showing. I have been playing devils advocate in this thread - debating with true facts but not revealing my own true beliefs or desires. I am not a believer in anarchy because the world is a result of anarchy and we are effectively living in anarchy but only as pawns of those who live in true freedom and anarchy - government organizations.
I decided to spill the beans because radscorpion was on to something. He is right to say privateers would rise up and take control of everything by any means necessary as we can already see the highly evolved result of that process - government.
Anarchy is bullshit (sorry I lack a better word) simply because humans, before language and before bondage, were already born into it. Humanity had it's chance back then IMO, and the world today is a result of the path some chose and the path that was forced upon others too weak to resist (the native americans for example). The world today is the result of that, a controlled anarchy where the strongest and most skilled at deception dominate the rest.
I enjoyed the debate and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. But perhaps there is still hope for humanity to evolve to something better, but we should be realistic about what both government and anarchy really are. Both are pretty fucking nasty, and ultimately the same thing or at least one is the direct result of the other.
|
On July 02 2011 06:50 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:48 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property. Not if you're just collateral damage.
Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness.
|
On July 02 2011 07:04 Treemonkeys wrote:
There are actually much better arguments against anarchy, or anarcho capitalism rather (or any "ideal" vision of anarchy), than you guys are showing. I have been playing devils advocate in this thread - debating with true facts but not revealing my own true beliefs or desires. I am not a believer in anarchy because the world is a result of anarchy and we are effectively living in anarchy but only as pawns of those who live in true freedom and anarchy - government organizations.
I decided to spill the beans because radscorpion was on to something. He is right to say privateers would rise up and take control of everything by any means necessary as we can already see the highly evolved result of that process - government.
Anarchy is bullshit (sorry I lack a better word) simply because humans, before language and before bondage, were already born into it. Humanity had it's chance back then IMO, and the world today is a result of the path some chose and the path that was forced upon others too weak to resist (the native americans for example). The world today is the result of that, a controlled anarchy where the strongest and most skilled at deception dominate the rest.
I enjoyed the debate and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. But perhaps there is still hope for humanity to evolve to something better, but we should be realistic about what both government and anarchy really are. Both are pretty fucking nasty, and ultimately the same thing or at least one is the direct result of the other.
Ah, well in that case my disagreement with you would be that it was not a path chosen but path biologically predetermined.
|
On July 02 2011 07:04 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:48 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property. Not if you're just collateral damage. Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness.
Simply that it is common for government to admit they killed completely innocent people and it is acceptable when labeled as collateral damage.
|
On July 02 2011 07:09 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 07:04 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:48 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property. Not if you're just collateral damage. Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness. Simply that it is common for government to admit they killed completely innocent people and it is acceptable when labeled as collateral damage.
That is still kind of too vague as I can imagine such situations only in some rather bad governments out there, not necessarily those we live in.
|
On July 02 2011 07:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 07:04 Treemonkeys wrote:
There are actually much better arguments against anarchy, or anarcho capitalism rather (or any "ideal" vision of anarchy), than you guys are showing. I have been playing devils advocate in this thread - debating with true facts but not revealing my own true beliefs or desires. I am not a believer in anarchy because the world is a result of anarchy and we are effectively living in anarchy but only as pawns of those who live in true freedom and anarchy - government organizations.
I decided to spill the beans because radscorpion was on to something. He is right to say privateers would rise up and take control of everything by any means necessary as we can already see the highly evolved result of that process - government.
Anarchy is bullshit (sorry I lack a better word) simply because humans, before language and before bondage, were already born into it. Humanity had it's chance back then IMO, and the world today is a result of the path some chose and the path that was forced upon others too weak to resist (the native americans for example). The world today is the result of that, a controlled anarchy where the strongest and most skilled at deception dominate the rest.
I enjoyed the debate and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. But perhaps there is still hope for humanity to evolve to something better, but we should be realistic about what both government and anarchy really are. Both are pretty fucking nasty, and ultimately the same thing or at least one is the direct result of the other. Ah, well in that case my disagreement with you would be that it was not a path chosen but path biologically predetermined.
Well that's the issue of what makes consciousness and all that jazz, a whole different topic for sure. I'm not even sure if I would agree or disagree with you. It's kind of like saying "did I choose to eat this for breakfast, or was I biologically predetermined to want to eat it?".
|
On July 02 2011 07:11 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 07:09 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 07:04 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:48 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property. Not if you're just collateral damage. Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness. Simply that it is common for government to admit they killed completely innocent people and it is acceptable when labeled as collateral damage. That is still kind of too vague as I can imagine such situations only in some rather bad governments out there, not necessarily those we live in.
The US does it on a regular basis, not sure if you consider them bad or not.
|
On July 02 2011 07:11 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 07:09 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 07:04 Treemonkeys wrote:
There are actually much better arguments against anarchy, or anarcho capitalism rather (or any "ideal" vision of anarchy), than you guys are showing. I have been playing devils advocate in this thread - debating with true facts but not revealing my own true beliefs or desires. I am not a believer in anarchy because the world is a result of anarchy and we are effectively living in anarchy but only as pawns of those who live in true freedom and anarchy - government organizations.
I decided to spill the beans because radscorpion was on to something. He is right to say privateers would rise up and take control of everything by any means necessary as we can already see the highly evolved result of that process - government.
Anarchy is bullshit (sorry I lack a better word) simply because humans, before language and before bondage, were already born into it. Humanity had it's chance back then IMO, and the world today is a result of the path some chose and the path that was forced upon others too weak to resist (the native americans for example). The world today is the result of that, a controlled anarchy where the strongest and most skilled at deception dominate the rest.
I enjoyed the debate and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. But perhaps there is still hope for humanity to evolve to something better, but we should be realistic about what both government and anarchy really are. Both are pretty fucking nasty, and ultimately the same thing or at least one is the direct result of the other. Ah, well in that case my disagreement with you would be that it was not a path chosen but path biologically predetermined. Well that's the issue of what makes consciousness and all that jazz, a whole different topic for sure. I'm not even sure if I would agree or disagree with you. It's kind of like saying "did I choose to eat this for breakfast, or was I biologically predetermined to want to eat it?".
Actually you don't have to go so far to think it is biologically predetermined. We are talking about societies, they are statistical "averages" of individuals. So being predetermined biologically in that sense does not say anything about existence of free will. It just means that preferences of groups of people are statistically such and such and the cause of those averages is evolutionary.
On July 02 2011 07:12 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 07:11 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 07:09 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 07:04 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:48 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property. Not if you're just collateral damage. Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness. Simply that it is common for government to admit they killed completely innocent people and it is acceptable when labeled as collateral damage. That is still kind of too vague as I can imagine such situations only in some rather bad governments out there, not necessarily those we live in. The US does it on a regular basis, not sure if you consider them bad or not.
Please an example  Although I think I get what are you thinking, you mean that US is killing innocent people outside US, because as far as I know your government is not yet killing its own citizens unless they are criminals. If your objection was to the fact that government can kill criminals and it is not a crime, then true, but I think in the original post it was implied that he meant that government can kill anyone it chooses without it being a crime.
|
From a moral point of view, I agree that anarchism is the ideal format for a society. Of course, the true ideal would be a society which fulfills the functions of government on a purely voluntary basis. I know I would have no problem voluntarily contributing to finance roads and other public goods, but most people probably wouldn't...
I don't know much about the specifics or history of Somalia, so I am reluctant to point toward it as a model of an anarchist society. In my mind, anarchism is a value-set, like pacifism or Christian love or Buddhist empathy. It doesn't describe the world, and it doesn't claim to be the most pragmatic. It is about morality, about having a criteria for judging situations within the world.
Anarchists do not believe that an anarchist society would be free of violence. They acknowledge that EVERY society will have violence, including the ideal statist society. The difference is, they do not believe in violent action being condoned and accepted by society as a whole, nor do they believe in establishing a system which is designed to coerce and harm the citizens. I can't stop a man from choosing to be a thief, but I can withdraw my support and consent from the state that commits crimes.
Most of mankind has forgotten the ideals of liberty and non-aggression. The ideals of the modern statists are safety, comfort, equality, peace of mind; all the ideals you would expect from a herd of cattle. Now our states have invested so many of our resources into developing and building bombs and jets and tanks that the individual has no hope of defending himself. We need the states now, to protect us from the states, and the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
|
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
Well, I mean, sort of. "The government" is not some guy who's got got me trapped in a cage with a gun to my head. The government is an organization established through a process of negotiation and societal change since it was formed based off of values held by those who created it. It is composed in the higher levels of people elected or appointed by elected officials. The decisions it makes are done through policies established by vote or by elected officials. Unfortunately some of the values held by those who created it were imperialistic and racist. They allowed real slavery to continue after all. We have given it a pervasive power in the society.
After all I think that ultimately property rights and contract enforcement only come from our legal system and therefore our government in a large way. Would you agree?
Edit: @ treemonkeys:
I'm still not really sure why you don't think (were arguing?) that consent of the majority is not an acceptable societal standard. You just sounded like a narcissistic egoist
|
Anarchist believer looooooooove to talk and defend their book beliefs.
Lets read some insight article that doesnt just talk about the growth of market:
http://www.un.org/children/conflict/english/somalia.html
Also, I remember a country that was half fine with a total lack of gobernment, does anyone remember Haiti? as soon as something bad happened the country had no way to get itself together, because there was no gobernment to put the shit together.
|
FrankOne,
the consent of the majority is not an acceptable standard, because the rights of the minority carry more weight. If the majority were to vote to steal or kill or enact slavery, that would not make it moral or acceptable. We have higher standards to adhere to than the will of a majority.
|
somalia... a success story? Um.. wow. Compared to what other country? sierre leone maybe? congo?
How about Rwanda which is the real success story... going from civil war and a mass genocide to one of the most peaceful and prosperous african countries...
because of a STABLE government...
|
The reality of modern slavery is not a result of emotions related to suggestions regarding conditions in different areas. It is in fact a definitional issue. And clear at that- what is defined as ownership, property, law, must necessarily imply the condiitions necessary for concluding the reality of slavery. No, it never left, though the prospect of it happening can be somewhat disturbing, none less for myself, hence the cautious approach to a subject grasped at by the more capable members of the Institute.
Now note that the freedom concept as perceived through experience is not subject of the universal definitions that result in conclusions on the subject - it is instead the conditioning. Note how the video touches on this in its assessment of public education, and claims of its real purpose. It is no secret, and a thinking man staying within the boxes of definitional strictness - though it throws himself outside the box of social acceptability. As a result, brave men take that path, and great respect, and fortitude is to be commended. To them - salut, but for the rest of us, the material to ponder about remains in existance - all because of definitional universality.
It is something of a dichotomy between reason from conditions to assessment, and emotions to assessment. While the choice of end assessment always remains subject of emotions, it is the intermediate phase, assessment, which is hijacked by propagandist concepts employed in enslaving the populus.
While reality of conclusions of definitional strictness is sparsely touched upon, as the reactions to article show, it reaffirms the emotion to assessment mechanic - due to fallacy of positivist condition replacing reason. It is the traged of modern mind that Mises has touched upon. The collective delusion exists as such, and its disappearance can only be necessitated by a total paradigm shift in what the epistemological foundations of knowledge in popular mind are considered. Perhaps unlikely given the edicational premise the video touched upon.
Not going to touch on the actual subject in this thread, because it's just pure ideological abstract drivel. But reading the above post is REALLY REALLY ANNOYING.
I know you designed it to make it appear like you exist in a world of thought that is levels above everyone else, but the fact is, it is terribly composed and articulated, leans heavily on buzzwords, and the lazy grammar just destroys any semblance of coherence. The only people who write like that are people who are attempting to appear smarter than they are.
|
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:28 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2011 06:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:25 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2011 06:24 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:23 Djzapz wrote:So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario. That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job. If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity. Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in. I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery. So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery? The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun. What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really. You've been taking his services. Can't leave the restaurant before paying. He fed you, protected you and kept you warm. You got there using his roads too. And born there? No way, you can leave np. You've been doing stuff if you're stuck there. This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime. Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 02 2011 06:01 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you. You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you. You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else. It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say. Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave. The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend? Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys." Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave. That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there. You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
This is just a dumb statement.
Democratic countries have something called "CONSTITUTION" that protects your basic rights, such as the right to own land or the right to life. If the government tries to take your land for absolutely no reason and without compensation, that would be violation of the constitution and would cause an outrage among the general public.
Have you EVER heard of such thing happening in a free country? Sure it happens in China, but China is also a "communist" country.
Also we pay taxes because we make use of public goods everyday. Who do you think built the road and traffic lights? Are you going to pay the power company to build power cables and water companies to build water pipes to your house?
|
On July 02 2011 07:34 Usagi wrote:Anarchist believer looooooooove to talk and defend their book beliefs. Lets read some insight article that doesnt just talk about the growth of market: http://www.un.org/children/conflict/english/somalia.htmlAlso, I remember a country that was half fine with a total lack of gobernment, does anyone remember Haiti? as soon as something bad happened the country had no way to get itself together, because there was no gobernment to put the shit together.
Indeed. There was a lengthy (and utterly boring) anarchism thread while back, and is there really a need to redo that? To imply that somalia is some kind of learning model is horrifying, and anyone advocating to do so shouldn't do so based on theory but on actual situations.
All the high-minded theory is nice and all, but hardly comes into play in a situation where people don't struggle against a democratic government, but instead pretty much have to fight for survival.
|
You know, it would be really refreshing to hear an anarchist or libertarian who took a stand and said "I believe that [insert country] best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity."
|
On July 02 2011 06:55 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:42 Haemonculus wrote:On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc. I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not. Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve? Inside the US, it would probably be hell for a while. You can't expect generations of people born and bred of the government tit to act calm and rational if that tit was suddenly pulled away from the. Eventually though things would become much better. Outside of the US some places would improve almost overnight.
Elaborate, please. How would things become better?
All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states?
It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac?
I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality.
Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis?
Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn?
I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want?
Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in.
|
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
I didn't say it was based on consent in the way that you're characterizing it, at all. Tacit consent is an imperfect system that doesn't give you anything close to full autonomy in choosing where you would want to live. But look, life isn't fair, and plane tickets aren't free. However, most people think that this imperfect system is preferable to anarchy. The point of a democracy is to get outcomes as close to what the majority wants as possible, within constraints, and you are in the extreme minority.
|
Anarchism is one of those concepts that appeals to people, mostly because it's basic idea is pretty nice: No Government, No Taxation, No Laws. The problem with this is it's insane to look at simplistic concept and then think you can actually implement it in the real world without huge concesions.
A true anarchy would be the single worst "state" to live under as a human being. There's many reasons for this, too many to list, but there's a few that most people will see the logic in.
First and foremost, as humans we tend to desire certain basic things. These things, like food, physical security, shelter, etc are things that we can gain through many different methods. Within an anarchy, you would have no guaranteed way in which to acquire something. This will (guaranteed) lead to starvation, sickness/disease and death.
When we think about anarchy, we think well take our developed nations and remove government. The reason our nations are developed, and why we don't have every state using a different currency/etc, is that we have government. To think that the better part of a continnent would agree upon a singular currency, agree to exchange goods freely, etc is insane.
This leads directly into my second point, even in anarchy government would appear. This sounds oxymoronic, but it's not. Think of how human civilization has developed over our time on this earth, we started out in anarchy and developed into government as our collective societal "groups" grew. This lead tribes to become states and states to become nations, and even within an anarchy groups which control significant portions of land/resources/etc would arise, setting their own rules/laws by which you can interact with them.
The issue of consent is also moot. If there's one guy who controls most of the food in an area, whether he wants your first born son or is just a really nice guy and gives food to anyone, you're gonna consent to his rules unless you willingly want to starve. You can't make the ideal choice every time, because anarchy allows people to setup lose-lose scenarios.
To look at a state like Somalia, and seriously believe it's a true representation of anarchy and a shining success is insanity. You're ignoring reality in doing so, and ignoring human nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
