On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: Consent differentiates exchange and robbery. The two actions are totally different in their implications for the economy - the first implies mutual benefit in regards to the property at hand, the second implies suffering. Hence why state creates suffering.
Very cute of you to completely disregard my post. I wanted to quote this as an example of a blatant falsehood, because it's immediately apparent to even the untrained eye that forced exchanges can be beneficial. Firefighting is probably the best example, rather than something like policing that extremists can argue against. You are required by dint of paying taxes to support the firefighting system in most countries. Because there are natural benefits to making sure that your neighbors are also insured in the case of fire, as well as economies of scale in the logistics involved, the natural state of the firefighting market is monopoly.
There is no demonstrated preference of goods - government bullying your money does not demonstrate you preferring the services received to money given - hence it being impossible to demonstrate public finance being mutually beneficial.
Economic theory and practice shows that monopolies supply less of a good at a higher price than nonmonopolistic markets. However, because the government can operate at a loss and has no profit motive (e.g. with revenues below expenditures), it can ensure that fires are fought no matter its (or your) financial situation. This is, of course, a massive benefit to the individual, although they may not consent to their taxation.
Please stop this ludicrous, fallacious reasoning, and respond directly to claims as they are submitted. Your posts continue to overemploy philosophical terminology in defending against eminently reasonable, scientific counterclaims.
Rothbardian monopoly theory refutes this claim, see "Man Economy State" paragraph 9 on firm theory.
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.
Fear. The video i posted touches in that. Let it go. Breath in and out. Remember, the argument doesnt stem from reason and logic, but of frightenment. Also remember, the state cannot fundamentally engage in demonstrably mutually beneficial activity. Private producers can. Hence, why it is aprioristically true that the anarchist method of production benefits consumers, while the statist method of production does not.
And can arguments not arise because we fear things? We debate things with regards to the benefits and the harms that such an idea may bring. Dismissing an idea simply because it arises from frightenment should never be a reason to dismiss an argument because arguments that arise from fright point out flaws in the things they are critiquing.
You say that private producers can account for many of the goods that governments currently do. But you haven't answered any of Haemonculus' arguments. You've merely dismissed them without truly considering them.
On July 02 2011 12:04 Haemonculus wrote: Fear, alright. Who's afraid? I'm assuming I'm the scared one, hiding in blissful ignorant slavery to my federal masters.
I can talk like Yoda too, or I can call you delusional. Please again explain to me how an anarchical society benefits the average person?
Private production can create "mutually beneficial activity?" Are you high? Private produce can produce working conditions similar to the early industrial era.
What keeps people from taking advantage of others? Of banning black people from their restaurant? Of beating their children or wives? The common decency inherent to mankind? You're a nut.
The source of mutually beneficial capital allocation is profit management - where profit guides capital according to consumer preferences. Remember - this is why it is at all possible to construct anything consumers desire. It is regrettable however, that this does not take place. As government formally rejects this - only the informal reasonability government employed producers' profit seeking leads to remotely tolerable situation.
Profit management will lead to a system which benefits everyone? Does that include the workers? The end consumer?
Let's say I run a factory. I can have my workers do 8 hour shifts, give them a lunch break, implement safety standards, and pay them a reasonable wage. Or I can run 12 hour shifts 6 days a week, give a 15 minute break to eat, replace injured workers by firing them, and pay them shit wages. I, the wealthy factory owner, will have much higher profit margins in the latter sense.
But I suppose in your world there's another better job out there, right? And that people would simply choose not to work in my factory, and instead go work for Joe who pays better? Any idea how many people work for walmart? You're adorable.
I can implement product safety standards. I don't want my product to hurt the end user. Or I can ship out something that looks pretty but contains lead, mercury, and whatever other toxins are used in production. I betcha I'll save some money by skimping out on safety. Profit margins, yay!
But those are economic concerns. Again, please address how your magical anarchical world treats its citizens? What keeps me from getting robbed or raped on my way home from work? Did I sign up with a local protection agency? Or am I carrying my machine gun to work with me? Guns are the great equalizer after all.
You strike me as someone with the leisure time to sit around reading up on philosophy and economic theory from the comfort of your house. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you're white, male, and middle-upper class, and quite likely lead a very comfortable life growing up in America. Is that where you see yourself in this new world of yours? As one of the elite towering over the masses of uneducated poor? Not everyone has had your opportunities.
On July 02 2011 12:51 Slakter wrote: People in this thread seem to seem to have misunderstood a lot of things.
1. Anarchism does not equal abolishment of rules but abolishment of rulers. 2. Not all Anarchists think alike. AT ALL. There are Anarcho-capitalists whom I think are the scum of the earth and there are more Socialist anarchists whom I would call the nicest people in the world! Then there are like a billion more. 3. Somalia is NOT an anarchy, if it was the "common folks" would have just as much of a say as any warlord. Which is not the case.
Alright, fine. Then explain to me *practically* how this new system works, magically dismantling the ruling government while maintaining infrastructure and social order.
I covered food, personal safety, and healthcare earlier. Let's look at some other stuff.
Roads. Who builds them? Who maintains them? If the answer is a private company, do I pay them to drive on their roads? Do I need a license to get from place to place? What if company X owns the beltway, and company Y owns I95. How do I get from washington to baltimore? Do I subscribe to both? What if 4 different companies control the various roads that I take from my house to my job. What if only one company controls all the roads? Where's their motivation to charge reasonable prices?
Justice. Let's say someone breaks into my house. What do I do? Private security company? Do they cover my area? Do they have a monopoly on home security in the area? If so, do they charge reasonable rates? Do they answer to anyone? Should I feel safe having them come to my home? Or again, do I just heavily arm myself and shoot intruders on sight? Or maybe I live in an apartment. What do I do if my landlord starts demanding higher and higher rent for no reason? What if we're late on rent and he breaks my boyfriend's legs, or worse? Are there consequences to deter him from that? Do we use mob justice?
Who helps victims of abuse?
Let's say someone accuses me of a stealing something. Does your world include a court system in which I can defend myself *fairly*? What if the accuser is really, really rich? Do I stand a chance against him in court in a private adjudication system? Who decides who is innocent, and who is guilty?
Etc etc etc... try to think of the daily practical applications for the things your proposing. Humanity has a horribly track record in regards to how we treat each other. Do you believe that schools in the American south would have desegregated had the government not sent the troops in? Or was that also a blatant misuse of the authority of an oppressive regime? Do you think factories would provide modern working conditions if they hadn't been *forced* to by the government? Hint, look at sweatshops in other countries. What makes you think that these "private producers" would be ethical in any way, shape, or form?
I'm not happy with the way the government does everything. I can't say I support all their decisions, or the bureaucracy, or whatever else. But I live a comfortable life, and enjoy luxuries that were unobtainable by most of the world's citizens a century ago. I enjoy a standard of safety where I can go to the store late at night without fear. I enjoy a standard of autonomy where I am not considered the literal property of my husband, and have the opportunity to pursue my own career if I wish. If that's just me being a brainwashed sheep, then color me enslaved.
I just find it highly unrealistic to think that were there no governing body, that the world would continue to magically keep rolling as it does today, only everything would be better because no taxes! I get it, you hate the big bad Guv'ment taking your money. But you take soooo much shit for granted simply by living in a structured society.
Economic theory and practice shows that monopolies supply less of a good at a higher price than nonmonopolistic markets. However, because the government can operate at a loss and has no profit motive (e.g. with revenues below expenditures), it can ensure that fires are fought no matter its (or your) financial situation. This is, of course, a massive benefit to the individual, although they may not consent to their taxation.
Please stop this ludicrous, fallacious reasoning, and respond directly to claims as they are submitted. Your posts continue to overemploy philosophical terminology in defending against eminently reasonable, scientific counterclaims.
Rothbardian monopoly theory refutes this claim, see "Man Economy State" paragraph 9 on firm theory.
Despite it having such little effect in the past, I will say it again: stop misrepresenting your facts. Rothbardian monopoly theory says nothing whatsoever about the situation I described. The essence of Rothbard's theory (which, again, is not broadly accepted as describing economic fact) is that monopoly, if it even exists and is definable, does not necessarily represent a condition injurious to consumers or their welfare.
What you have described is not a refutation of my point that government's lack of a profit motive is an advantage in certain markets.
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: Consent differentiates exchange and robbery. The two actions are totally different in their implications for the economy - the first implies mutual benefit in regards to the property at hand, the second implies suffering. Hence why state creates suffering.
Very cute of you to completely disregard my post. I wanted to quote this as an example of a blatant falsehood, because it's immediately apparent to even the untrained eye that forced exchanges can be beneficial. Firefighting is probably the best example, rather than something like policing that extremists can argue against. You are required by dint of paying taxes to support the firefighting system in most countries. Because there are natural benefits to making sure that your neighbors are also insured in the case of fire, as well as economies of scale in the logistics involved, the natural state of the firefighting market is monopoly.
There is no demonstrated preference of goods - government bullying your money does not demonstrate you preferring the services received to money given - hence it being impossible to demonstrate public finance being mutually beneficial.
Economic theory and practice shows that monopolies supply less of a good at a higher price than nonmonopolistic markets. However, because the government can operate at a loss and has no profit motive (e.g. with revenues below expenditures), it can ensure that fires are fought no matter its (or your) financial situation. This is, of course, a massive benefit to the individual, although they may not consent to their taxation.
Please stop this ludicrous, fallacious reasoning, and respond directly to claims as they are submitted. Your posts continue to overemploy philosophical terminology in defending against eminently reasonable, scientific counterclaims.
Rothbardian monopoly theory refutes this claim, see "Man Economy State" paragraph 9 on firm theory.
On July 02 2011 12:05 TranceStorm wrote:
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote:
On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:55 Treemonkeys wrote:
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.
Fear. The video i posted touches in that. Let it go. Breath in and out. Remember, the argument doesnt stem from reason and logic, but of frightenment. Also remember, the state cannot fundamentally engage in demonstrably mutually beneficial activity. Private producers can. Hence, why it is aprioristically true that the anarchist method of production benefits consumers, while the statist method of production does not.
And can arguments not arise because we fear things? We debate things with regards to the benefits and the harms that such an idea may bring. Dismissing an idea simply because it arises from frightenment should never be a reason to dismiss an argument because arguments that arise from fright point out flaws in the things they are critiquing.
You say that private producers can account for many of the goods that governments currently do. But you haven't answered any of Haemonculus' arguments. You've merely dismissed them without truly considering them.
On July 02 2011 12:04 Haemonculus wrote: Fear, alright. Who's afraid? I'm assuming I'm the scared one, hiding in blissful ignorant slavery to my federal masters.
I can talk like Yoda too, or I can call you delusional. Please again explain to me how an anarchical society benefits the average person?
Private production can create "mutually beneficial activity?" Are you high? Private produce can produce working conditions similar to the early industrial era.
What keeps people from taking advantage of others? Of banning black people from their restaurant? Of beating their children or wives? The common decency inherent to mankind? You're a nut.
The source of mutually beneficial capital allocation is profit management - where profit guides capital according to consumer preferences. Remember - this is why it is at all possible to construct anything consumers desire. It is regrettable however, that this does not take place. As government formally rejects this - only the informal reasonability government employed producers' profit seeking leads to remotely tolerable situation.
Profit management will lead to a system which benefits everyone? Does that include the workers? The end consumer?
Let's say I run a factory. I can have my workers do 8 hour shifts, give them a lunch break, implement safety standards, and pay them a reasonable wage. Or I can run 12 hour shifts 6 days a week, give a 15 minute break to eat, replace injured workers by firing them, and pay them shit wages. I, the wealthy factory owner, will have much higher profit margins in the latter sense.
But I suppose in your world there's another better job out there, right? And that people would simply choose not to work in my factory, and instead go work for Joe who pays better? Any idea how many people work for walmart? You're adorable.
I can implement product safety standards. I don't want my product to hurt the end user. Or I can ship out something that looks pretty but contains lead, mercury, and whatever other toxins are used in production. I betcha I'll save some money by skimping out on safety. Profit margins, yay!
But those are economic concerns. Again, please address how your magical anarchical world treats its citizens? What keeps me from getting robbed or raped on my way home from work? Did I sign up with a local protection agency? Or am I carrying my machine gun to work with me? Guns are the great equalizer after all.
You strike me as someone with the leisure time to sit around reading up on philosophy and economic theory from the comfort of your house. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you're white, male, and middle-upper class, and quite likely lead a very comfortable life growing up in America. Is that where you see yourself in this new world of yours? As one of the elite towering over the masses of uneducated poor? Not everyone has had your opportunities.
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: Consent differentiates exchange and robbery. The two actions are totally different in their implications for the economy - the first implies mutual benefit in regards to the property at hand, the second implies suffering. Hence why state creates suffering.
Very cute of you to completely disregard my post. I wanted to quote this as an example of a blatant falsehood, because it's immediately apparent to even the untrained eye that forced exchanges can be beneficial. Firefighting is probably the best example, rather than something like policing that extremists can argue against. You are required by dint of paying taxes to support the firefighting system in most countries. Because there are natural benefits to making sure that your neighbors are also insured in the case of fire, as well as economies of scale in the logistics involved, the natural state of the firefighting market is monopoly.
There is no demonstrated preference of goods - government bullying your money does not demonstrate you preferring the services received to money given - hence it being impossible to demonstrate public finance being mutually beneficial.
Economic theory and practice shows that monopolies supply less of a good at a higher price than nonmonopolistic markets. However, because the government can operate at a loss and has no profit motive (e.g. with revenues below expenditures), it can ensure that fires are fought no matter its (or your) financial situation. This is, of course, a massive benefit to the individual, although they may not consent to their taxation.
Please stop this ludicrous, fallacious reasoning, and respond directly to claims as they are submitted. Your posts continue to overemploy philosophical terminology in defending against eminently reasonable, scientific counterclaims.
Rothbardian monopoly theory refutes this claim, see "Man Economy State" paragraph 9 on firm theory.
On July 02 2011 12:05 TranceStorm wrote:
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote:
On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:55 Treemonkeys wrote:
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.
Fear. The video i posted touches in that. Let it go. Breath in and out. Remember, the argument doesnt stem from reason and logic, but of frightenment. Also remember, the state cannot fundamentally engage in demonstrably mutually beneficial activity. Private producers can. Hence, why it is aprioristically true that the anarchist method of production benefits consumers, while the statist method of production does not.
And can arguments not arise because we fear things? We debate things with regards to the benefits and the harms that such an idea may bring. Dismissing an idea simply because it arises from frightenment should never be a reason to dismiss an argument because arguments that arise from fright point out flaws in the things they are critiquing.
You say that private producers can account for many of the goods that governments currently do. But you haven't answered any of Haemonculus' arguments. You've merely dismissed them without truly considering them.
On July 02 2011 12:04 Haemonculus wrote: Fear, alright. Who's afraid? I'm assuming I'm the scared one, hiding in blissful ignorant slavery to my federal masters.
I can talk like Yoda too, or I can call you delusional. Please again explain to me how an anarchical society benefits the average person?
Private production can create "mutually beneficial activity?" Are you high? Private produce can produce working conditions similar to the early industrial era.
What keeps people from taking advantage of others? Of banning black people from their restaurant? Of beating their children or wives? The common decency inherent to mankind? You're a nut.
The source of mutually beneficial capital allocation is profit management - where profit guides capital according to consumer preferences. Remember - this is why it is at all possible to construct anything consumers desire. It is regrettable however, that this does not take place. As government formally rejects this - only the informal reasonability government employed producers' profit seeking leads to remotely tolerable situation.
Profit management will lead to a system which benefits everyone? Does that include the workers? The end consumer?
Let's say I run a factory. I can have my workers do 8 hour shifts, give them a lunch break, implement safety standards, and pay them a reasonable wage. Or I can run 12 hour shifts 6 days a week, give a 15 minute break to eat, replace injured workers by firing them, and pay them shit wages. I, the wealthy factory owner, will have much higher profit margins in the latter sense.
But I suppose in your world there's another better job out there, right? And that people would simply choose not to work in my factory, and instead go work for Joe who pays better? Any idea how many people work for walmart? You're adorable.
I can implement product safety standards. I don't want my product to hurt the end user. Or I can ship out something that looks pretty but contains lead, mercury, and whatever other toxins are used in production. I betcha I'll save some money by skimping out on safety. Profit margins, yay!
But those are economic concerns. Again, please address how your magical anarchical world treats its citizens? What keeps me from getting robbed or raped on my way home from work? Did I sign up with a local protection agency? Or am I carrying my machine gun to work with me? Guns are the great equalizer after all.
You strike me as someone with the leisure time to sit around reading up on philosophy and economic theory from the comfort of your house. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you're white, male, and middle-upper class, and quite likely lead a very comfortable life growing up in America. Is that where you see yourself in this new world of yours? As one of the elite towering over the masses of uneducated poor? Not everyone has had your opportunities.
Goddamn, I enjoyed reading that.
Yeah, Haemonculus is doing a great job cutting through the bullshit in here. Many props for well-orchestrated responses.
Anarchy talk reminds me of that South Park episode :D
At any rate worst thing about anarchy would be monopoly, let's say somebody does actually decide to build roads and tax you for them. He owns all the roads in his area so he can tax you w/e he wants to use them and you'll need them for sure. If the guy is so inclined he's going to have so much money he can buy some weapons for those anarchy loving hippies he's bleeding of their money, motivate them with some proper food and payment and sendem to fight the guy next to him to get his roads too, and so on.
Then when you speak of governments some people even say elections for anarchy, that's no longer an arachy dude at BEST it's a VERY liberal democracy, but certainly not anarchy.
Anarchy is not even an Utopia it's more of a dream within a dream within a dream then inception.
Some of the arguments in here are hilarious. If someone owns all the roads then he can tax you whatever he wants and he can buy weapons and then send people to fight for him.
So what we need to stop this, is to form an organization that will own all the roads, and will tax people and they will be forced to pay for them, and by the way this organization can buy weapons and send people to fight on it's behalf, under threat of imprisonment or death.
On July 02 2011 16:03 jdseemoreglass wrote: Some of the arguments in here are hilarious. If someone owns all the roads then he can tax you whatever he wants and he can buy weapons and then send people to fight for him.
So what we need to stop this, is to form an organization that will own all the roads, and will tax people and they will be forced to pay for them, and by the way this organization can buy weapons and send people to fight on it's behalf, under threat of imprisonment or death.
An organisation that most of the time, transparently follows due process before making good on its threat of imprisonment or death?
I'll take that over a band of dudes with guns any day.
On July 02 2011 16:03 jdseemoreglass wrote: Some of the arguments in here are hilarious. If someone owns all the roads then he can tax you whatever he wants and he can buy weapons and then send people to fight for him.
So what we need to stop this, is to form an organization that will own all the roads, and will tax people and they will be forced to pay for them, and by the way this organization can buy weapons and send people to fight on it's behalf, under threat of imprisonment or death.
An organisation that most of the time, transparently follows due process before making good on its threat of imprisonment or death?
I'll take that over a band of dudes with guns any day.
Due process according to whom? The state? So it's ok to force people to fight a war under threat of imprisonment or death so long as it's done "transparently" and under "due process"?
And let's not forget that in many parts of the world, all throughout history, bands of dudes with guns are feared significantly less than the dictatorial regimes, where people disappear, or are tortured in secret prisons, where women can be taken at will by the elite, and mass graves are common.
I'm not arguing in favor of anarchy, but let's not make the state out to be some kind of savior to mankind. They have perpetrated the worst atrocities in history.
On July 02 2011 16:03 jdseemoreglass wrote: Some of the arguments in here are hilarious. If someone owns all the roads then he can tax you whatever he wants and he can buy weapons and then send people to fight for him.
So what we need to stop this, is to form an organization that will own all the roads, and will tax people and they will be forced to pay for them, and by the way this organization can buy weapons and send people to fight on it's behalf, under threat of imprisonment or death.
An organisation that most of the time, transparently follows due process before making good on its threat of imprisonment or death?
I'll take that over a band of dudes with guns any day.
Due process according to whom? The state? So it's ok to force people to fight a war under threat of imprisonment or death so long as it's done "transparently" and under "due process"?
Due process according to anyone who is brainwashed by the Vast Statist Conspiracy, obviously. (That's about 99.5% of the population that's over the age of 25)
Please. If there's one thing that liberal democracies have right, its that they usually don't hold secret kangroo courts.
Unless you *really* piss somebody in DC off.
And let's not forget that in many parts of the world, all throughout history, bands of dudes with guns are feared significantly less than the dictatorial regimes, where people disappear, or are tortured in secret prisons, where women can be taken at will by the elite, and mass graves are common.
Must be why two thirds of Russia's wishing for the Good Old Days of Communism, after a decade of laissez-faire capitalism and banditry, and the state leaving every man, woman, or pensioner to fend for themselves.
On July 02 2011 16:32 Nightfall.589 wrote: Must be why two thirds of Russia's wishing for the Good Old Days of Communism, after a decade of laissez-faire capitalism and banditry, and the state leaving every man, woman, or pensioner to fend for themselves.
Anyone in Russia who is wishing for the "good old days of communism" should be offered a brief lesson in history, since communism killed tens of millions of people through murder, forced labor camps, mass famine, etc...
On July 02 2011 16:32 Nightfall.589 wrote: Must be why two thirds of Russia's wishing for the Good Old Days of Communism, after a decade of laissez-faire capitalism and banditry, and the state leaving every man, woman, or pensioner to fend for themselves.
Anyone in Russia who is wishing for the "good old days of communism" should be offered a brief lesson in history, since communism killed tens of millions of people through murder, forced labor camps, mass famine, etc...
I'm glad that we're upfront about the many similarities between Stalinist Russia and Somalia.
Most of those people, incidentally, had stable jobs, a roof over their heads, rations on the table, hope for a pension, and felt substantially safer from violent crime. Most of them were also born after the Stalinist purges and starvation campaigns. Life for them was quite arguably, better in 1978 then it was in 1998.
Again, please address how your magical anarchical world treats its citizens? What keeps me from getting robbed or raped on my way home from work? Did I sign up with a local protection agency? Or am I carrying my machine gun to work with me? Guns are the great equalizer after all.
Even in the absence of crime you'll still have honest disagreements about contracts or what have you that require official arbiters with the authority to implement decisions...
On July 02 2011 15:31 Cyba wrote: Anarchy talk reminds me of that South Park episode :D
At any rate worst thing about anarchy would be monopoly, let's say somebody does actually decide to build roads and tax you for them. He owns all the roads in his area so he can tax you w/e he wants to use them and you'll need them for sure. If the guy is so inclined he's going to have so much money he can buy some weapons for those anarchy loving hippies he's bleeding of their money, motivate them with some proper food and payment and sendem to fight the guy next to him to get his roads too, and so on.
Then when you speak of governments some people even say elections for anarchy, that's no longer an arachy dude at BEST it's a VERY liberal democracy, but certainly not anarchy.
Anarchy is not even an Utopia it's more of a dream within a dream within a dream then inception.
Well you obviously dont know what an Anarchy is. An anarchy can often times consist of a direct democracy within a small autonomous area where everyone goes to vote on the things they care for or is relevant to their lives. You like many others believe that anarchy means no central ruling and utter chaos which is wrong, it just means that the peolpe as a whole decide what´s best instead of the people deciding people who decide for them.
I´m not here to discuss the ups and downs of anarchism (there are downs, I know. Lots of them) since I do not really see the gain in discussing it on a forum like Teamliquid where everyone pretty much has their views cemented already (Myself included) and so I will not convince anyone of becoming an anarchist. I also dont feel capable of doing it since English is my second language and I feel like I would probably just spout gibberish if I tried to join an intellectual debate in english. However I feel it´s my responsibility to tell people the facts about what an anarchism means to better the worlds understanding. Tis all.
On July 02 2011 15:31 Cyba wrote: Anarchy talk reminds me of that South Park episode :D
At any rate worst thing about anarchy would be monopoly, let's say somebody does actually decide to build roads and tax you for them. He owns all the roads in his area so he can tax you w/e he wants to use them and you'll need them for sure. If the guy is so inclined he's going to have so much money he can buy some weapons for those anarchy loving hippies he's bleeding of their money, motivate them with some proper food and payment and sendem to fight the guy next to him to get his roads too, and so on.
Then when you speak of governments some people even say elections for anarchy, that's no longer an arachy dude at BEST it's a VERY liberal democracy, but certainly not anarchy.
Anarchy is not even an Utopia it's more of a dream within a dream within a dream then inception.
Well you obviously dont know what an Anarchy is. An anarchy can often times consist of a direct democracy within a small autonomous area where everyone goes to vote on the things they care for or is relevant to their lives. You like many others believe that anarchy means no central ruling and utter chaos which is wrong, it just means that the peolpe as a whole decide what´s best instead of the people deciding people who decide for them.
I´m not here to discuss the ups and downs of anarchism (there are downs, I know. Lots of them) since I do not really see the gain in discussing it on a forum like Teamliquid where everyone pretty much has their views cemented already (Myself included) and so I will not convince anyone of becoming an anarchist. I also dont feel capable of doing it since English is my second language and I feel like I would probably just spout gibberish if I tried to join an intellectual debate in english. However I feel it´s my responsibility to tell people the facts about what an anarchism means to better the worlds understanding. Tis all.
My views are far from cemented. I don't like everything my government does. I wish pot and gay marriage were legal, I don't want *my* taxes going to fund overseas wars in the middle east, and I think our lobbying system is horribly corrupt. Please just *try* to explain how my world would improve were we to abolish the central government.
How would *your* life improve? I'm serious, give me some practical examples. If it's just "oh, I can spend my untaxed income on more things!" then I can assure you that Donald Trump's untaxed income will be spent on more things too. I also guarantee you that he can hire more guys with better guns than you ever could.
Your idea of an anarchy seems to be that of a village-democracy. We know everyone in town, and all the men get together and decide stuff. That worked great when there were what, 300 million people total on the *planet*? How will New York City, or hell, Tokyo, handle such a system? Just because you or the OP or whoever else lives in a small house far from your neighbors doesn't mean that's everyone's reality. People as a whole deciding what's best from them? Ok, how do we implement that? Have general elections for everything? Who runs and organizes that? If you're for smaller government, alright, I can dig that. But to claim the absence of any ruling body would be an improvement over what we have now is absurd.
Are there still health, safety, workplace, and social standards? Who enforces these? I wanna practice medicine, but I've never been to medical school. If I open a clinic, who regulates my practice? I feel like I could wing it and perform surgery, but I've never tried so who knows. That'd be safe, yeah?
To the other poster who said that roaming armed bands of thugs are less scary than the state, what the shit are you smoking? Please give me some. I think your bubble will burst the minute you see a dead body in the street.
Let's be honest. What has the American government reealllly done to fuck you over? Movies like Brazil are fun and all, but you can't seriously think that' what happens, right? The big scary government is kidnapping and torturing its citizens? In a few cases I'm sure we have. Guantanamo was pretty fucked up. But the private sector is equally capable of such things, and without a governing body to send federal agents in, Jamie Leigh Jones may have stayed locked in a shipping crate after being gang raped by her *private sector employers*.
Lastly, general defense of the nation? We certainly don't need to have an army the size that we do now, I will happily admit that and am all for shrinking our military spending. But in your stateless society, what happens if war does occur? Do we play medieval peasants and wait for them to come to our towns/cities, and do our best to fight them off ourselves? I can assure you I'd be pretty useless in a warzone.
I just want to reiterate my main point. The people who are for anarchy seem to think that they personally will still lead comfortable lives and that the only difference will be no taxes. I'm trying to explain that that's a horridly unrealistic viewpoint, and that yes, I would rather have a structured and regulated police force than a multitude of random thugs with guns enforcing their own justice system.
On July 02 2011 15:31 Cyba wrote: Anarchy talk reminds me of that South Park episode :D
At any rate worst thing about anarchy would be monopoly, let's say somebody does actually decide to build roads and tax you for them. He owns all the roads in his area so he can tax you w/e he wants to use them and you'll need them for sure. If the guy is so inclined he's going to have so much money he can buy some weapons for those anarchy loving hippies he's bleeding of their money, motivate them with some proper food and payment and sendem to fight the guy next to him to get his roads too, and so on.
Then when you speak of governments some people even say elections for anarchy, that's no longer an arachy dude at BEST it's a VERY liberal democracy, but certainly not anarchy.
Anarchy is not even an Utopia it's more of a dream within a dream within a dream then inception.
Well you obviously dont know what an Anarchy is. An anarchy can often times consist of a direct democracy within a small autonomous area where everyone goes to vote on the things they care for or is relevant to their lives. You like many others believe that anarchy means no central ruling and utter chaos which is wrong, it just means that the peolpe as a whole decide what´s best instead of the people deciding people who decide for them.
I´m not here to discuss the ups and downs of anarchism (there are downs, I know. Lots of them) since I do not really see the gain in discussing it on a forum like Teamliquid where everyone pretty much has their views cemented already (Myself included) and so I will not convince anyone of becoming an anarchist. I also dont feel capable of doing it since English is my second language and I feel like I would probably just spout gibberish if I tried to join an intellectual debate in english. However I feel it´s my responsibility to tell people the facts about what an anarchism means to better the worlds understanding. Tis all.
My views are far from cemented. I don't like everything my government does. I wish pot and gay marriage were legal, I don't want *my* taxes going to fund overseas wars in the middle east, and I think our lobbying system is horribly corrupt. Please just *try* to explain how my world would improve were we to abolish the central government.
How would *your* life improve? I'm serious, give me some practical examples. If it's just "oh, I can spend my untaxed income on more things!" then I can assure you that Donald Trump's untaxed income will be spent on more things too. I also guarantee you that he can hire more guys with better guns than you ever could.
Your idea of an anarchy seems to be that of a village-democracy. We know everyone in town, and all the men get together and decide stuff. That worked great when there were what, 300 million people total on the *planet*? How will New York City, or hell, Tokyo, handle such a system? Just because you or the OP or whoever else lives in a small house far from your neighbors doesn't mean that's everyone's reality. People as a whole deciding what's best from them? Ok, how do we implement that? Have general elections for everything? Who runs and organizes that? If you're for smaller government, alright, I can dig that. But to claim the absence of any ruling body would be an improvement over what we have now is absurd.
Are there still health, safety, workplace, and social standards? Who enforces these? I wanna practice medicine, but I've never been to medical school. If I open a clinic, who regulates my practice? I feel like I could wing it and perform surgery, but I've never tried so who knows. That'd be safe, yeah?
To the other poster who said that roaming armed bands of thugs are less scary than the state, what the shit are you smoking? Please give me some. I think your bubble will burst the minute you see a dead body in the street.
Let's be honest. What has the American government reealllly done to fuck you over? Movies like Brazil are fun and all, but you can't seriously think that' what happens, right? The big scary government is kidnapping and torturing its citizens? In a few cases I'm sure we have. Guantanamo was pretty fucked up. But the private sector is equally capable of such things, and without a governing body to send federal agents in, Jamie Leigh Jones may have stayed locked in a shipping crate after being gang raped by her *private sector employers*.
Lastly, general defense of the nation? We certainly don't need to have an army the size that we do now, I will happily admit that and am all for shrinking our military spending. But in your stateless society, what happens if war does occur? Do we play medieval peasants and wait for them to come to our towns/cities, and do our best to fight them off ourselves? I can assure you I'd be pretty useless in a warzone.
I just want to reiterate my main point. The people who are for anarchy seem to think that they personally will still lead comfortable lives and that the only difference will be no taxes. I'm trying to explain that that's a horridly unrealistic viewpoint, and that yes, I would rather have a structured and regulated police force than a multitude of random thugs with guns enforcing their own justice system.
on your last point, in an anarchist society there exist no taxes because means of production are socialized and money is abandonded. stop mixing libertarian ideologie with anarchism. an example of anarchism in practice were spain during the civil war and ukraine during the russian civil war. for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution Anarchism is social revolutionary and has more in common with communism (no, not in a stalin-way) than with capitalism.
On July 02 2011 15:31 Cyba wrote: Anarchy talk reminds me of that South Park episode :D
At any rate worst thing about anarchy would be monopoly, let's say somebody does actually decide to build roads and tax you for them. He owns all the roads in his area so he can tax you w/e he wants to use them and you'll need them for sure. If the guy is so inclined he's going to have so much money he can buy some weapons for those anarchy loving hippies he's bleeding of their money, motivate them with some proper food and payment and sendem to fight the guy next to him to get his roads too, and so on.
Then when you speak of governments some people even say elections for anarchy, that's no longer an arachy dude at BEST it's a VERY liberal democracy, but certainly not anarchy.
Anarchy is not even an Utopia it's more of a dream within a dream within a dream then inception.
Well you obviously dont know what an Anarchy is. An anarchy can often times consist of a direct democracy within a small autonomous area where everyone goes to vote on the things they care for or is relevant to their lives. You like many others believe that anarchy means no central ruling and utter chaos which is wrong, it just means that the peolpe as a whole decide what´s best instead of the people deciding people who decide for them.
I´m not here to discuss the ups and downs of anarchism (there are downs, I know. Lots of them) since I do not really see the gain in discussing it on a forum like Teamliquid where everyone pretty much has their views cemented already (Myself included) and so I will not convince anyone of becoming an anarchist. I also dont feel capable of doing it since English is my second language and I feel like I would probably just spout gibberish if I tried to join an intellectual debate in english. However I feel it´s my responsibility to tell people the facts about what an anarchism means to better the worlds understanding. Tis all.
Ye the main idea of people of as a whole deciding something is democracy since 100% of the people agreeing on something is imposible. Having the time to hear everybody's opinion on every matter of life is also imposible.
So since the means to sustain this anarchy don't exist anarchy can't exist. Not to mention whoever's giving your definitions of it is confusing it with the early concepts of democracy which couldn't be applied either.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lKfEf.gif)
