On July 03 2011 02:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: haemonculus is simply repeating the same argument that's been repeated against anarchist ideology since it's beginning. Really beating a dead horse too, in a very long, drawn out way. It's basically a strawman argument too, assuming that anarchy means taking every single thing the government does and eliminating it completely from society.
In my mind, anarchism is about an ideal. The government which governs least governs best. Arguing about the details of financing sewer systems is not really the point... The point is that government is an inherently immoral institution, and we should remember that fact, and avoid it's monopolistic force to achieve our goals as rarely as possible. If it's possible to replace a government function with voluntary exchange, then we should always embrace that. Repeating "what about roads durr?!!" is a way of completely disregarding an argument that makes a lot of sense.
The saying, "that government is best which governs least" is NOT an anarchist ideal. It's part of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, which advocates constant progress. Thoreau himself found admirable qualities in the U.S. government, but just felt that more emphasis on the individual was necessary and that the government should work more to protect the individual. Constant progress.
In an anarchy, power transfers away from the individual toward the wealthy and/or powerful, just as it does in any situation in which you have a lack of regulation and individual protections.
On July 03 2011 02:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: What are the arguments against slavery, against murder, against theft, against a draft? They are all founded upon the same morality that anarchist theory is based upon. We need to be very careful about justifying the violation of individual rights in the name of convenience.
Actually, none of the arguments against slavery, murder, theft, and the draft are based upon the ideal of "best government = least government." In fact, in a situation where there is a weak government, all of these things would likely be more prevalent.
With a decentralized or weak government, that which "governs" less, there are fewer individual protections against theft, murder, and slavery. A draft by the government surely is less likely, but in an anarchist society there is little stopping large powerful organizations from making their own militias and threatening/killing those who do not join them. This exact thing happens in many of the decentralized African countries which are torn apart by rebel groups because of a lack of centralized authority. The government NEEDS some power to be able to prevent things like that from occurring. It needs some authority and power to prevent individual citizens from losing their basic rights.
The idea that less government=good has nothing to do with individual rights. It is far more beneficial to the rich and powerful; this is why large corporations prefer laissez faire government policy with respect to the economy.
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: [quote]
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.
Not that I wholly disagree with your general points, but you are kind of building a straw man here.
1. Assuming other opportunities for workers, the risk of injury and costs of shifts would be calculated into the wages they are willing to work for. Benefits of 8h shifts and a safe working environment lower the wages you have to pay your workers. Then, even in anarchy, maybe especially so, workers can either just walk out on you, depriving you of production until you have new ones or rob everything in that factory if they deem the benefit of that to be greater than future employment under bad conditions. My point is, where he assumes unlimited working opportunities, you are assuming instant adequately skilled laborers.
Then, I may be a little dreamy-eyed with Walmart for what they did for customers and supply chains, but 8-15$ isn't a bad wage for completely unskilled labor.
2. Your business model here assumes low set-up costs. You have to be able to make a profit even if you do not have repeat customers due to your product being shitty. So no setting up of an expensive efficient factory. Even if you decide to change your brand name every day for your product so customers cannot spot your bad product and become repeat customers, you are creating a demand for a second business that just gets paid for telling people what products to avoid. Then, you have to assume that there is no substitute for your product that isn't bad and that people are not willing to pay a premium for products they have experienced to be safe. That would fly in the face of current marketing and signaling theory though.
3. See lojacks. Just the possibility of you having private security or a gun will reduce crime towards you whether you have it or not. This will reduce the criminals that are willing to attack you in an environment where failure means death to the truly desperate. Depending on the socio-economic environment in that anarchical society, that might only be a few people.
Anarchy might work, at first, for people that already are willing to adhere to certain social institutions. Where it gets funky is when the unregulated market brought about a company with enough power to form a government.
on your first point, lets say those workers go on strike because they don't like the way get treated. Whats keeping the factory owner from just using force? The argument that everyone got weapons and that they could fight back? Sounds like a great society, where every demand for better conditions becomes a civil war.
As I understand it, the idea is, that the factory owner is aware of the possibility that workers too have a cost-benefit analysis in their head. If wages and working conditions are too low or bad, it will be rational for them to just rob the factory and run off. The owner will want to prevent that, because even low skilled workers are not replaceable immediately and not at low wages if he has to replace them all at once. Thus he will keep working conditions and wages at a level that would make it irrational for the current worker to do that.
That's what market theory would predict at least. But as with market theory, that's too clean and full of assumptions that are flawed.
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.
Money is abandoned. Fantastic. The means of production are socialized? Are we still talking about anarchy?
Do I barter for my groceries then? How do employers pay their employees? In food? In luxury goods?
Oh and by the way, quotes from George Orwell are hardly convincing.
and you see, this is the problem, it's hard for people to think outside the box. You don't barter, everyhting is free, from each according to his needs to his abilities. Before you cry unrealistic and all just read up a bit on this stuff, and how it worked in spain and ukraine, even tough those societies were piss-poor (Even more before "the revolution").
You can believe in quotes or not, but those people lived in these days.
edit: i know, a society based on solidarity instead of competition is pretty different to think about.
I love this way of thinking "they disagree... aw shit man they just cant think outside the box" you must think really highly of yourself
On July 03 2011 02:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: haemonculus is simply repeating the same argument that's been repeated against anarchist ideology since it's beginning. Really beating a dead horse too, in a very long, drawn out way. It's basically a strawman argument too, assuming that anarchy means taking every single thing the government does and eliminating it completely from society.
In my mind, anarchism is about an ideal. The government which governs least governs best. Arguing about the details of financing sewer systems is not really the point... The point is that government is an inherently immoral institution, and we should remember that fact, and avoid it's monopolistic force to achieve our goals as rarely as possible. If it's possible to replace a government function with voluntary exchange, then we should always embrace that. Repeating "what about roads durr?!!" is a way of completely disregarding an argument that makes a lot of sense.
What are the arguments against slavery, against murder, against theft, against a draft? They are all founded upon the same morality that anarchist theory is based upon. We need to be very careful about justifying the violation of individual rights in the name of convenience.
so argue in favour of smaller government.. argue in favour of government having less power. if you read haemonculus' posts, you'd note that she has stated support for both of these. It's certainly possible to have an intelligent discussion featuring different points of view with regards to how much power and influence a government should have (you can argue tax rates, and what institutions should be governmentialised and what institutions shouldn't be - e.g. should schools/hospitals/public transportation/garbage disposal/prisons be private or public or both, you can argue whether the government has created just and sensible laws and whether you should follow laws you disagree with - e.g. legalization of drugs and prostitution.) But don't structure your argument around some fictactious ideal society where there is no government and where people just coexist in blissful harmony and everyone always does what is best for everyone else without any type of coercion. We're not like that. We never have been. Once stuff becomes too big, once too many people with too many different interests become involved (I can agree that anarchy could work in a small and homogenous society for some period of time - and that such a society might flourish and its inhabitants might be very, very happy!), governing factions become important to maintain peace and security, and peace and security are the most important necessities to facilitate everything else us humans desire.
Our society has not randomly happened to turn out the way it has turned out. First people learned how to develop crops so they could be lazier and get more food with less effort. then some people learned that rather than developing crops, they could steal what other people had produced. then the first group of people needed to defend themselves - so they chose to ally themselves with people capable of withstanding group #2, in return for supplying food for their defenders - or they'd pay tribute to group #2 - or group #2 would just rape/enslave all women, kill all men and rape/kill/enslave all children, because they had the power to do so. Eventually, this development of dependance between various groups with various skillsets (warriors need food - farmers need warriors to defend from other warriors) created a need for various services that would be exchanged for other services. (and people soon learned that money was a good, sensible way of exchanging services, as money would always be useful to everyone whereas a system of bartering requires both parties involved to have items that are of interest to the other.) Going further, people with power within these societies, as well as people living within these societies who felt blessed with the absense of rape and killing, gave themselves and were given kingly power to provide stability. going even further, eventually people realized that good kinglyness was not necessarily hereditary and that too much power in the hand of a single person disconnected from the lives of ordinary citizens did not lead to the best possible lives for everyone involved. so we got politicians - people elected to govern based on their ability to convince other people of their ability to govern. that is where we are, and it is that way because it is the way that has made the most sense to the most people and which has proven itself to be the most "accomplishable" model for society.
Essentially, while it is absolutely true that an enormous and all-powerful government can oppress its citizens to a greater degree than what a smaller and less powerful government can do, and that an enormous government which attempts to kill people will be more successful in their amount to do so than what ravaging barbarians were ever capable of, successful governments are essentially responsible for hindering ravaging barbarians. Peace and security are the most important factors for any government - stability is number three - and even if an anarchist society proved capable of governing itself, that does not help much at all if it is incapable of protecting itself from outwardly threats. That has never happened, and it never will. If anything, we're moving in the very opposite direction, and some generations from now, people will be cherishing that development as well.
On July 03 2011 02:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: haemonculus is simply repeating the same argument that's been repeated against anarchist ideology since it's beginning. Really beating a dead horse too, in a very long, drawn out way. It's basically a strawman argument too, assuming that anarchy means taking every single thing the government does and eliminating it completely from society.
In my mind, anarchism is about an ideal. The government which governs least governs best. Arguing about the details of financing sewer systems is not really the point... The point is that government is an inherently immoral institution, and we should remember that fact, and avoid it's monopolistic force to achieve our goals as rarely as possible. If it's possible to replace a government function with voluntary exchange, then we should always embrace that. Repeating "what about roads durr?!!" is a way of completely disregarding an argument that makes a lot of sense.
What are the arguments against slavery, against murder, against theft, against a draft? They are all founded upon the same morality that anarchist theory is based upon. We need to be very careful about justifying the violation of individual rights in the name of convenience.
The government is an "inherently immoral institution", while the right of property is the holy grail of morality. I love anarcho-capitalists.
In a true democracy people select people into government who will represent them and will not turn into this corrupt all-powerful abusing institution.
Eliminating government would be an awful idea. In anarchy, the strong rule and there will be no police and no military to stop them.
Wait, you say you are going to uphold your own police/security forces in some form? So now you are saying that you are going to make a local government?
Well the CIA is very active in somalia, and now they have ongoing drone missions.
Regardless of what the government there is doing, I just hope that after decades of horror and poverty Somalia continues to improve and offer its people a more stable existence.
anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Where does this "evil" of the government come from? From the people itself. Goverment isn't evil. People are. People of every stage of life, poor and rich alike. Dismantling government will not get you rid of these abusive people. They will only seek to get into the corporate leadership and now you have all-powerful evil corporations and no government to regulate them.
On July 03 2011 02:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: haemonculus is simply repeating the same argument that's been repeated against anarchist ideology since it's beginning. Really beating a dead horse too, in a very long, drawn out way. It's basically a strawman argument too, assuming that anarchy means taking every single thing the government does and eliminating it completely from society.
In my mind, anarchism is about an ideal. The government which governs least governs best. Arguing about the details of financing sewer systems is not really the point... The point is that government is an inherently immoral institution, and we should remember that fact, and avoid it's monopolistic force to achieve our goals as rarely as possible. If it's possible to replace a government function with voluntary exchange, then we should always embrace that. Repeating "what about roads durr?!!" is a way of completely disregarding an argument that makes a lot of sense.
What are the arguments against slavery, against murder, against theft, against a draft? They are all founded upon the same morality that anarchist theory is based upon. We need to be very careful about justifying the violation of individual rights in the name of convenience.
so argue in favour of smaller government.. argue in favour of government having less power. if you read haemonculus' posts, you'd note that she has stated support for both of these. It's certainly possible to have an intelligent discussion featuring different points of view with regards to how much power and influence a government should have (you can argue tax rates, and what institutions should be governmentialised and what institutions shouldn't be - e.g. should schools/hospitals/public transportation/garbage disposal/prisons be private or public or both, you can argue whether the government has created just and sensible laws and whether you should follow laws you disagree with - e.g. legalization of drugs and prostitution.) But don't structure your argument around some fictactious ideal society where there is no government and where people just coexist in blissful harmony and everyone always does what is best for everyone else without any type of coercion. We're not like that. We never have been. Once stuff becomes too big, once too many people with too many different interests become involved (I can agree that anarchy could work in a small and homogenous society for some period of time - and that such a society might flourish and its inhabitants might be very, very happy!), governing factions become important to maintain peace and security, and peace and security are the most important necessities to facilitate everything else us humans desire.
Our society has not randomly happened to turn out the way it has turned out. First people learned how to develop crops so they could be lazier and get more food with less effort. then some people learned that rather than developing crops, they could steal what other people had produced. then the first group of people needed to defend themselves - so they chose to ally themselves with people capable of withstanding group #2, in return for supplying food for their defenders - or they'd pay tribute to group #2 - or group #2 would just rape/enslave all women, kill all men and rape/kill/enslave all children, because they had the power to do so. Eventually, this development of dependance between various groups with various skillsets (warriors need food - farmers need warriors to defend from other warriors) created a need for various services that would be exchanged for other services. (and people soon learned that money was a good, sensible way of exchanging services, as money would always be useful to everyone whereas a system of bartering requires both parties involved to have items that are of interest to the other.) Going further, people with power within these societies, as well as people living within these societies who felt blessed with the absense of rape and killing, gave themselves and were given kingly power to provide stability. going even further, eventually people realized that good kinglyness was not necessarily hereditary and that too much power in the hand of a single person disconnected from the lives of ordinary citizens did not lead to the best possible lives for everyone involved. so we got politicians - people elected to govern based on their ability to convince other people of their ability to govern. that is where we are, and it is that way because it is the way that has made the most sense to the most people and which has proven itself to be the most "accomplishable" model for society.
Essentially, while it is absolutely true that an enormous and all-powerful government can oppress its citizens to a greater degree than what a smaller and less powerful government can do, and that an enormous government which attempts to kill people will be more successful in their amount to do so than what ravaging barbarians were ever capable of, successful governments are essentially responsible for hindering ravaging barbarians. Peace and security are the most important factors for any government - stability is number three - and even if an anarchist society proved capable of governing itself, that does not help much at all if it is incapable of protecting itself from outwardly threats. That has never happened, and it never will. If anything, we're moving in the very opposite direction, and some generations from now, people will be cherishing that development as well.
People didn't start to develop crops because they could be lazier, they life as nomadic tribes was very easier. Agriculture needed much more worktime. They were forced to develop new way of lifes because they couldn't find enough food in their old lifestyle. Reasons for this aren't 100% known. Also, the way you create history isn't 100% right also. Monarchy's and Tyranny's weren't created within consent of society and it's very regional different.
Until 1989 governments weren't able to guarantee it's citizens peace, they were one factor for the relative consequent warfare. The reasons this stopped is just that everyone acknowledged the number one position of the USA. This status will probably not hold long anymore.
but i think it's senseless to discuss here because most people here think capitalism is the end-all of history, which will not hold true.
To blackflag: as for the development of agricultural societies and change from hunter-gatherer societies, you are right in stating that the true reasons are largely unknown as there are no written sources and it's largely a guess-game. But people would not alter their ways if their new way was not perceived as preferable. choosing the word "lazy" was well, a "lazy" choice of word by me.
But when it comes to tyrants/kings - tyrant is originally a greek term and they initially were given the power by the population. eventually however, tyrants became too cruel in their ways, some people revolted and killed tyrants, and they formed "democracies" instead. as for kings, originally kings were chosen for being the most powerful within their group (often in terms of physical power). eventually kings clinged on to their power through being the most powerful within their society (rarely in terms of physical power.) now, for a peasant living around year 1300 whom was born into poverty and bound to his vassal through birth, there was no choice involved - but some hundred years earlier when his ancestor(s) chose to move closer to his protector because he/they didn't want his family to be raped and murdered, that was a conscious choice.
Government naturally forms out of anarchy. I think a good example illustrating this is the rise of the feudal system in Europe. After the fall of the Roman Empire Europe was pretty close to complete Anarchy. After the feudal system came to be things in Europe began to rapidly progress.
I don't really know what else I can add here. I can't think outside the box I guess.
Systems where everyone "gets what he needs according to his abilities" sound great on paper. It might even work if human beings were ants. But we're not. We're jerks. We kill each other, we steal from each other, we torture each other, etc.
These systems sound great on paper and probably worked thousands of years ago. There's 7 billion people on this planet. I just can't see how quality of life could be expected to improve, (especially for those of us in the first world), were we to abolish central governments.
If my ramblings are worthless novels, fine. I still think you're a nut.
When you have your terrible argument with flawed logic crushed, the neccessary response is that you must link wikipedia and tell the attackers to learn things.
The amount of times "There are tons of reasons why my insane beliefs are true! Here, http://www.wikipedia.org/ go read and learn cause im too knowledgable about all this and its not worth me explaining it (certainly not that I am incapable of explaining it) to a common moron like you!" has happened is unreal.
On July 01 2011 12:13 xarthaz wrote: Somalia is experiencing progress according to several criteria, despite (or, some would say, because of) its lack of a strong central government. As a result, it is by far the fastest growing, fastest improving among all the less developed countries. This should be a model for the world..
As Robert Murphy points out in his latest article, despite the biased assessment of BBC's Reflects on 20 Years of Anarchy, careful analysis of conditions in the area suggest remarkable improvement in living standards.
For example, Somalia has the most vibrant telecommunications sector in Africa
Somali telecoms expert Ahmed Farah says the first mobile telephone mast went up in Somalia in 1994, and now someone can make a mobile call from anywhere in the country.
There are nine networks to choose from and they offer services from texting to mobile internet access.
In addition, the area is at the forefront of the development of the security industry,
What is particularly amusing is the complaint that businesses currently must pay private security firms to guard their goods. Well, a government police and court system won't work for tips — they too will need to be financed, but through involuntary taxation. As with any monopoly, the government's provision of a "justice system" will be more expensive — other things being equal — than the provision through private, competing agencies.
In addition, Murphy addresses several of the fallacies statist critics often commit in their assessment of the private security sector.
As Ben Powell et al. in his fantastic work has shown, so Murphy too concludes that if people in the more developed countries of the world wish to help the impoverished region, we can certainly send money and even visit to offer medical services and other assistance. But if the West foists the "gift" of another state on the beleaguered Somalis, their appropriate response should be, "No, you shouldn't have."
I've an assignment for you: go out and buy Fukuyama's "The origins of political order" and read it. Fukuyama is a known advocate of liberal democracy, but he gives some REALLY good arguments why government is a necessity if a people wants to get anywhere economically.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
On July 03 2011 06:49 Haemonculus wrote: I don't really know what else I can add here. I can't think outside the box I guess.
Systems where everyone "gets what he needs according to his abilities" sound great on paper. It might even work if human beings were ants. But we're not. We're jerks. We kill each other, we steal from each other, we torture each other, etc.
These systems sound great on paper and probably worked thousands of years ago. There's 7 billion people on this planet. I just can't see how quality of life could be expected to improve, (especially for those of us in the first world), were we to abolish central governments.
If my ramblings are worthless novels, fine. I still think you're a nut.
You´re right. He is a nut.
The only way to make people nicer to each other is to pretty much slowly improve society and finally hit our Utopia. The difference between you and me as it seems right now is that you think people are assholes by nature while I think people are assholes since that´s all they know.
I dont usually say that I´m for a purely Anarchist society, I´d rather call me purely philosophic anarchist because to be honest, I´m NOT the smartest person on earth and I do NOT know the ultimate way to live life, instead I try as best as I can to be a good person.
On July 03 2011 03:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: To blackflag: as for the development of agricultural societies and change from hunter-gatherer societies, you are right in stating that the true reasons are largely unknown as there are no written sources and it's largely a guess-game. But people would not alter their ways if their new way was not perceived as preferable. choosing the word "lazy" was well, a "lazy" choice of word by me.
.
The word "lazy" is indeed a downright horrible choice of words. Agriculture was preferable, but hunting and gathering required less effort, as in way less.
We don't know what made people start growing crops and become sedentary. It's a bit like the "what was first; the chicken or the egg?" Did agriculture trigger population growth or was it the other way around?
I see a lot of confusion between Americans, where many political terms have been redefined to have the opposite meaning to what they have to the rest of the world.
American style so called 'libertarianism' has nothing to do with actual libertarianism and anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a total tyranny of private power.
The idea was that in a society with perfect freedom, free markets would lead to perfect equality. Now this argument is probably fallacious. But Somalia is one of the least free countries in the world so their free market, which is actually pretty free, shouldn't even lead to perfect equality even if the argument is valid.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://images.mises.org/DailyArticleBigImages/5418.jpg)
